Va. Tech Incident

Comments

17 responses to “Va. Tech Incident”

1. 

   hybridartifacts

   April 18, 2007

   Please don’t take offense-but why do many Americans get upset when people in other countries call them ‘cowboys’-when the response of so many Americans to a tragic event like this is to argue that America should be more, not less, like the Wild West?

   Reply
   1. 

      audiomind

      April 18, 2007

      *There really needs to be an edit button for comments, so I don’t have to delete the whole comment to correct a simple mistake!*

      You’re (I’m assuming here) basing your premise on the baseless assumption that all Americans are “cowboys” (aside from GW Bush and his cronies), which is far from the case. Such a question is like me asking if all British people are stupid because they consistently allow their government to install millions of cameras to watch their every move. Surveillance society anyone? 1984 anyone?

      In any case, other than by a law-abiding teacher/student carrying (and thus using) a concealed weapon, what alternative would have stopped this madman Monday?

      A lock-down would have ended in more people deaths.

      Security was lax (and is always lax at colleges) and was demonstrably useless (plus they don’t carry weapons themselves).

      Treating everyone like criminals, like what is currently done at airports, etc., would effectively shut a college down, not to mention the huge negative impact it would have on any college that would enact such draconian measures.

      What you call the Wild West…..is what I would call protecting myself from murderers, criminals and thieves.

      Reply
      1. 

         hybridartifacts

         April 18, 2007

         I so agree about editing posts-it can be a pain 🙂

         Having lived in the USA I am quite aware that a)not all Americans are ‘cowboys’ b) that America is actually very divided on its opinions re Bush and co. Having studied a lot of history I also know that there is a big difference between a cowboy and frontier concepts of justice in the old west.

         However-much of the world isn’t. What much of the world is very aware of is that for some reason America has an incredibly high instance of gun crime (and violent crime in general). There are other countries that have far higher levels of private ownerships of guns (Finland and Switzerland are both frequently mentioned in this regard) but have incredibly low levels of gun crime. For many people outside the USA, having been fed a diet of Hollywood movies where most problems are solved by shooting people (of which the western is a classic example) its fairly logical that people connect the two. The mental picture conjured in peoples minds of an entire classroom armed with guns and opening fire to defend themselves against a spree killer evokes strong images of gunfights-and westerns. It therefore seems logical that this will only serve to re-enforce the image many people already have of ‘cowboy’ approaches to problems (specifically that the correct way to solve a problem is for someone to shoot someone else). The gentleman who had survived the holocaust and died standing in the way of the killers bullets presented an incredibly brave, pragmatic and noble alternative (one incidentally that faces many British Police when confronted with a gun, since our police are not routinely armed-a good friend of mine had to talk down a man pointing a shotgun at him a few years ago, knowing he was very likely to be shot in doing so).

         Now-with the stats on gun ownership outside the USA and gun crime I am tempted to suggest that more stringent gun control isn’t perhaps the answer. But I am also not entirely convinced that a gun battle is either. And it is tragic that a situation should arise that puts people in a position of either sacrificing themselves to try and save others or of needing to actively defend themselves with guns of their own. Its quite possible that a) many people would have been accidentally wounded or even killed in such a scenario by scared people trying to defend themselves, many of whom would probably be terrible shots and in a panic, and b) that incidents of gun related deaths would dramatically increase because in the heat of the moment students, now regularly armed, would use those guns themselves whenever they felt threatened or angry. In a country that already has 29000 or so deaths a year from firearms it could be argued that few thousand more isnt all that bad-but then again Bush declared a war on terror over only 3000. Even 1 life is important to someone.

         Of course one of the characteristics indelibly etched onto peoples perception of the wild west around the world is that it was a time and place where people felt a need to protect themselves from murderers, criminals and thieves by being armed and prepared to act to defend themselves. So yes-that situation is exactly what many people would call ‘the wild west’, which is why I made the point that many people would also perceive the suggestion that the students should have been armed to protect themselves as fitting with the unfortunate but prevalent stereotype of many Americans (in particular Bush and co these days) being ‘cowboys’.

         The attitude toward defense/self protection in the Wild West was indeed what you describe as ‘protecting myself from murderers, criminals and thieves.’ You may not like the comparison, but actually you just made it yourself very succinctly.

         Reply
         1. 

            audiomind

            April 19, 2007

            The purpose of a concealed carry permit is primarily to educate and train gun owners on the use of concealed weapons, which in practice keeps the scenarios you described in a) & b) down. Utah is a great example. The state allows teachers and students to have a concealed weapon on campus so long as they possess a concealed carry permit and I honestly do not believe they’ve every had a single violent incident involving a gun within an academic setting there.

            Unfortunately, modern day America is an extremely violent (and crazy) place…..I believe in part because of our highly charged, mechanized, fast pace, very stressful and competitive society. Not to mention the differences between societal classes (race, religion, social beliefs, etc.) are exceptionally great, thus creating enormous tension and bitterness between classes of people, which eventually leads to confrontations. The poor are extremely poor and the rich are filthy rich…….but, I’m guessing you’re fairly aware of the extreme differences in societal classes here, etc….

            In lieu of this, I feel it almost a necessity to own a couple of weapons currently for personal safety reasons, especially after previously being involved in a couple extremely violent situations that called for the protection I didn’t possess at the time, situations that could have left me for DEAD.

            Reply
            1. 

               hybridartifacts

               April 19, 2007

               Its always difficult knowing how best to protect oneself from crime-Im never sure how effective my fathers burglar alarm is (mostly it just goes off when he is on holiday anyway, which is a pain because then I get people phoning me trying to come check the blasted thing out).

               Training is very important-I agree 100%-and if it were a requirement that every gun owner also received proper training at the very least that might reduce the thousands of accidents every year. If you are going to have a gun culture you might as well make it as safe and responsible as possible-many other countries with high numbers of guns to people like Switzerland have them because their military training is compulsory and these are guns held by standing members of the army waiting to be called up. These people have all thus had intensive training.

               I would argue that perhaps rather than treating poverty and crime as as a given and responding to the threat by self protection that perhaps it would make more sense to address the reasons for the poverty and make some changes. Of course that doesn’t help individuals wanting increased safety right now-but it would certainly make sense for the future and ultimately perhaps help reduce a sense of need.

               Reply
      2. 

         hybridartifacts

         April 18, 2007

         This is another part-its been a long reply, I separated it out because its more of an aside and an agreement with your take on some issues in the UK (we have our own cultural hang ups and problems, of which this is just one):

         I would suggest that the only sane and pragmatic approach to this issue isn’t either arming or disarming-but that America should be doing some serious soul searching over the role of violence and guns in society-to try and discover why it is that places like Finland and Switzerland seem to be able to have so many guns around and NOT have all these deaths. Spree killers are very hard to stop with security and gun controls-but some countries seem to have more than others (I think this is an issue that we failed to address properly with our own two significant spree killings-Dunblane and Hungerford).

         I agree with you regarding Britain and surveillance btw-we tolerate far too much (and the proposed Identity card scheme Blair wants to introduce is totally insane and seems to make parts of 1984 look rather tame). Britain has tended to have a big problem with an over authoritarian state that is secretive and manipulative in the extreme-I wish we had as much openness as America has on such things. The consistently high level of public access to information regarding the state in America is something we could, and should, learn from.

         Reply
         1. 

            audiomind

            April 19, 2007

            Do you data on Switzerland and Finland….as I really don’t know much about their situations, as it relates to gun ownership and use.

            Reply
            1. 

               hybridartifacts

               April 19, 2007

               I only have what stats I have culled from news articles-Switzerland and Finland are both frequently cited as having high proportions of gun ownership and low levels of gun crime-heres what I found online. Doing some research on my own rather than just taking media comments for granted suggests some of the figures reported by the media are inaccurate or misleading on both sides of the argument around gun controls. So I cant vouch for the reliability of the info, or any conclusions, but in general it does seem to be backed up by other info I have seen:

               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
               http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm
               http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm
               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland
               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Finland

               The stats used for some of these are clearly a bit old (1990s), and they do show correlations between high instances of gun ownership and gun crime in some countries-but proportionately lower ones where strict gun controls exist. I have found some wildly different claims about the number of firearm related deaths in the USA for example, probably caused by people relying on stats from different dates or agencies.

               I found some of the arguments about looking at desire and availability/feasability of committing crimes with guns interesting-its a factor I dont hear talked about much but it makes sense. If you are going to kill someone its a LOT easier with a gun-you don’t have to get up close, so there is less of a psychological barrier to overcome (it enables you distance yourself emotionally from the target and the act, something I believe has been demonstrated to make killing easier), its physically more likely to kill instead of injure than say a knife, and it enables killing in greater numbers at greater speed. Which is why soldiers are armed with guns not knives.

               The stat that has the most power in the argument for firearms as self protection is that for justifiable homicide though:
               http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
               In 2004 the number of justifiable homicides with firearms was 170 and the number of homicides was 9326. Thats just under 2%. Logically one would conclude that self protection is only thus relevant under 2% of the time and thus almost completely useless as an argument. Its far more likely that the prevalence and ease of access of firearms increases the likelihood of use, and thus the likelihood of death in both crimes and suicides because it makes both psychologically easier and quicker to do.

               In the end I am convinced that it is primarily cultural and social factors that determine the rates and nature of gun crimes worldwide. Though in general proportions of firearm ownership in a country do seem to increase the likelihood of instances of gun crime in many countries, places like Finland show very different trends. But then Finland has a very different culture, much more about social responsibility than about private rights and privileges. Perhaps the irony is that coupling the rights of ‘the pursuit of happiness ‘ and the ‘rights to bear arms’ might be that be people feel disenchanted when they don’t find that happiness (represented in western culture by wealth more often than not these days), so they use one right to help them in the pursuit of another, or in seeking some form of psychological redress?

               Of course, we should not forget that in the recent case of a spree killing, the killer was not American-I have come across other instances of spree killers not indigenous to the country in which they kill, which suggests that spree killings in particular may have lots of other factors involved, especially mental health issues. What I do know is that in the UK we had some firearms related spree killings before gun laws were tightened (generally with shotguns since at that point they were the most available firearm), but since that time we have a change to spree attacks with bladed weapons resulting in far lower death rates. It is far far harder to have spree killings if people have limited access to firearms.

               Reply
               1. 

                  audiomind

                  April 19, 2007

                  I’m very weary of government data, polls, statistics and such type of presented information simply because it attempts to use limited available data (that’s never entirely ‘static’ or accurate by any means) to project the appearance of ‘fact’ upon a whole population, which is indisputably an unscientific and inaccurate predictor of the true reality. Call me skeptical, but such data is basically only an educated guess, especially as it relates to the USA. I don’t know how ‘good’ other countries are able do it, but ‘research’ here that involves such statistics and studies is sketchy at best, even though the mainstream news (and government at all levels) attempts to pass it off as legitimate information, which drives me nuts.

                  This is the reason you AND I are getting greatly conflicting numbers on the subject (I looked for the information myself as well), because there exist no accurate proof of certain ‘facts’. It sucks, but it is how it is.

                  Even if I were to believe the FBI statistics, what about a legally concealed weapon as a deterrent against criminals with violent intent? Like you said, hard, ‘circumstantial at best’, data on this would be practically impossible to come by. But in my experience, which is about all we humans usually have to go on, this deterrent works wonders.

                  Reply
                  1. 

                     hybridartifacts

                     April 19, 2007

                     hmm-you can draw some conclusions from correlating such as suicide rates to gun ownership, instances of gun related crimes to areas with differing gun laws etc. Its not perfect, but it can at least suggest trends.

                     At the end of the day the only hard and fast conclusion I can come to is that for one reason or another America has a considerably more violent culture than any other Western country-in the short term its probably reasonable from the perspective of someone living in the States and worried about being a victim of that violence to conclude they need a firearm for self protection, but I am aware of no stats that actually even suggest it will lower actual instances of violent crime and gun related deaths-only serve to protect a small number of individuals (not always a bad thing in itself perhaps, but not a solution to the overall problem). It would be reasonable to assume that the only indicative stat readily available is probably the justifiable homicide one.

                     The concept that had students been armed during the recent spree killing there would have been less deaths also has no evidence to actually back it up so far as I can see. Any exchange of gunfire tends to involve bystanders risking being hit, and increased access to firearms in day to day life only seems to me to lead to an obvious increase in their being used both in crimes and suicides, or being involved in accidents. The problem with the whole deterrent concept of firearms is that while its fine to argue that it works wonders, a large proportion of crimes and suicides involving firearms must inevitably be caused by people whose original intent in buying the gun was self protection. Also, one mans just cause is another mans crime. Probably most criminals with a gun has justified their possession of the weapon at some point. Most murders are committed by people thinking they are protecting their own interests and rights. They don’t use a gun to kill because they have suddenly converted to the dark side of the force. In the long run only addressing why American culture is so violent (poverty, cultural concepts, etc) can actually make America a less dangerous place to live.

                     It is thought provoking to discuss-but in the end I feel we will simply go round in circles-the cultural divide of thought on the issue between American’s and Europeans is massive-as massive as the difference in instances of gun crime.

                     Reply
                     1. 

                        audiomind

                        April 19, 2007

                        The news media always seems stunned and surprised when tragedies like this happen, yet their coverage sounds so familiar to the stories about Columbine eight years ago. They dwell on the personality of the young murderer who did the shootings, before killing himself. They talk about him being a “loner,” depressed, perhaps angry and stalking women.

                        But aren’t there lonely and depressed people all over the world? Many countries have high suicide rates. Why is it that in the US so many become mass murderers?

                        The U.S. is the world leader in seemingly random acts of violence by individuals. Why?

                        President George W. Bush rushed to Virginia to speak at a large convocation the day after the killings and tried to set the tone for what could be said about them. “It’s impossible to make sense of such violence and suffering,” he said.

                        He didn’t ask why or try to understand. “Have faith” instead, was Bush’s message. 🙁

                        HUH?

                        What distinguishes this country from the rest of the world? It is neither the most affluent nor the poorest. It is neither the most secular nor the most religious. It is not the most culturally homogeneous nor is it the most diverse.

                        The U.S. has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Over 2 million people are locked up in the prison system each year. Furthermore, when commercially armed security guards are also taken into consideration, the U.S. has millions of employees who use guns and other coercive paraphernalia in their jobs.

                        In the final analysis, the military and the police exist to perpetuate and protect this present unjust system of social inequality, where a few can claim personal ownership over a vast economy built by the sweat and blood of hundreds of millions of drone workers.

                        And the more divided, the more polarized our society becomes, the higher the level of coercion and violence. Weapons are now everywhere in this society, as are Tasers, handcuffs, knives, swords, clubs, grenades and tear gas.

                        Further, violence is a big money maker in the US culture. Television, films, pulp novels, Internet sites, video games—all dwell on “sociopaths” while glorifying the state’s use of violence, often supplemented by a lone vigilante. By the time children reach their teens, they have already seen thousands of murders and killings on television. Even though I’m not going to assume that TV and/or video games cause violence, the fact remains that the our huge media culture glorifies it. Who honestly has the ability to comprehend the repercussions of such long-term, consistent exposure to these types of stimuli?

                        The social soil of our economy, our culture, can alienate and enrage an unstable and miserable person who should be getting help but can’t find it. If, as reports are saying, the young killer was on anti-depressant medication, it is all the more evidence that at a time when a majority of medical personnel are blanketing the masses with prescriptions of psychoactive drugs (with absolutely no long-term studies on their effects) with relatively low follow-up, along with health care becoming relatively unavailable for tens of millions, treating mental health problems requires more from society than just prescribing dubious chemicals.

                        Many liberal commentators are taking this occasion to renew the demand for tougher gun laws, go figure. Yes, weapons in the hands of criminals are horrible, but so are bunker buster bombs, helicopters that fire thousands of rounds a minute, and the ultimate — nuclear weapons. Disarming people is not the answer, especially when our government is armed to the teeth and uses brutality and coercion on a daily basis, globally and locally.

                        The best antidote, vaccine, to these types of tragedies is to build a movement for profound social change, a movement directed at solving the great problems depressing and polluting so much of our humanity today, whether they be wars, global famine, inequality or the loneliness of the dog-eat-dog society.

                     2. 

                        hybridartifacts

                        April 19, 2007

                        I must admit Bush’s response seems completely lame by any standard and from any view point for or against gun control. But then I kinda expect that from Bush. Just like I expect Tony Blair to squirm around the truth whenever he opens his mouth.

                        The biggest effect on crime, especially violent crime, I can see is ultimately culture. Cultures with high regard for social responsibility and corporate/shared group identities tend to have lower crime levels overall (one reason why increasing urbanisation is generally strongly linked to crime rises). Cultures that elevated personal freedoms over social obligations tend to have higher crime rates. I guess the price of individual freedoms being seen as more important than corporate responsibilities is other people feel freer to commit crimes against you. Note-corporate responsibility does not in itself mean one cannot have individual freedoms, merely that your own freedoms have to be viewed strongly in the light of others and the community at large. less dog-eat-dog…more dog-help-dog perhaps?

                     3. 

                        audiomind

                        April 19, 2007

                        The Association of Conceal Carry Legislation on the Crime Rates in Utah 1992 – 1997
                        by Jason Cash, B.S., Heath Diel, B.S., Joseph L. Lyon, M.D., M.P.H.
                        Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah
                        http://utahshootingsports.com/usscstudy.htm

                        CONCEALED CARRY
                        Facts & Statistics
                        http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm

                        Utah > Crime statistics
                        http://www.statemaster.com/state/UT-utah/cri-crime

                     4. 

                        hybridartifacts

                        April 19, 2007

                        Some interesting stats there.
                        A few things strike me at first glance-first off the amount of actual change across some of the graphs looks to be well within normal amounts of fluctuation and probably are not actually representing a reflection of any significant change due to an increase in carry permits. The stat that does show a marked improvement looks to be the one for unintentional firearm accidents-which suggests that an increased demand for handling training probably goes with the carry permit (which is certainly a good thing)-but without a longer period represented around those stats its hard to get any real sense from them.

                        The revocations by reason chart is utterly useless-it doesn’t even give a date and the axis marked ‘1-reasons’ would get an instant fail in any exam I ever did which used stats. Certainly I would have failed my stats based history degree paper straight off if I included a graph like that without also including an explanation of at least the period it covered.
                        Significantly, while the rates show on the graphs do show a change in males 10-24, it doesn’t show a consistent drop-which can just as easily suggest other factors such as improved policing might be a factor.

                        “The data indicates that homicide and rape perpetrators are not being deterred by the increase in citizens carrying concealed handguns. Assault rates and personal property crimes have continued to decrease, but were doing so before the passage of the law. Robbery rates appear to have been impacted, decreasing since the 1995 law passage.”
                        Its not necessarily the case that there is a link between a fall in robbery rates and concealed carry permits-especially since a significant proportion of robberies would involve circumstances were a concealed carry permit would be irrelevant-ie burglary. Assault rates were already decreasing-suggesting also that some other factor is at work, not concealed carry permits. And as they mention themselves homicide and rapes (the crimes you would most want to be protecting yourself) were unaffected. My own conclusion from the stats presented, where valid conclusions could be drawn, would at the very best be that there is no evidence of a correlation between conceal carry permits being introduced and the actual instance of crimes. But they draw the opposite conclusion. I suspect this is because they are effectively not a neutral source-they already have a very clear bias for wishing to present the information in the most favorable light they can because of who they are-they state it clearly at the top of the page:
                        “Utah Shooting Sports Council
                        Protecting Safe and Legal Gun Ownership and Use”

                        Thats why where I could I wanted to make reference to the FBI stats as they are not as likely to include any bias or misrepresentation of the data as either a pro or anti gun control site would be.

                        The azccw site is highly misleading-it gives the distinct impression that there is a clear and unequivocal correlation between right to carry and lower crime rates. This is total bullshit even by the standards of another pro-right to carry site:
                        “Sorting FBI data by violent crime rate uncovers some interesting results. The seven least violent states are all shall-issue right-to-carry (RTC). Of the seven most violent states, three are non-RTC (includes D.C.) Since about 75% of all states are RTC, 43% of the worst being non-RTC makes these states over-represented at the unpleasant end. The five states with the lowest murder rate are RTC, but two of the five worst are non-RTC. The eleven states with the lowest robbery rate are RTC, but of the eleven worst, 5 are non-RTC. Nine of 10 states with the lowest assault rates are RTC, while 3 of 10 with the highest rates are non-RTC. The only exception is in rates of rape, where three of the 10 lowest are non-RTC, while only one non-RTC state is in the 10 worst.”
                        this from:
                        http://newsbusters.org/node/9140
                        which at least admits that its not actually the case that RTC vs non-RTC is universally successful, unlike the other site. And none of this information is of the slightest use without examining other potential factors than RTC in determining differences in the stats. Social factors, local policing initiatives and so on could all be playing as much, if not more of a role.

                     5. 

                        hybridartifacts

                        April 19, 2007

                        I thought it only fair to throw in our own gun problem in the UK here:

                        http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/
                        We have had an general reduction of gun crime recently-though the overall trend has tended to be up before now-surely that is a clear indicator that banning guns, real and imitation on the streets is effective? Actually I am not all that convinced by the UK stats as presented either. Its way to early to tell if its their gun policies taking effect or that the overall trend will change.

                        The actual UK trends suggest that since the 1995 gun ban in the UK gun crime has increased steadily-its quite possible that all the gun ban did was disarm people legally and responsibly using firearms for sporting purposes (note-self protection use of a firearm in the UK has always carried an immediate manslaughter charge-even if discharged by a police office in line of duty-they have to demonstrate that there was no other solution available at the time involving lesser degrees of force).

                        So-why is gun crime still rising in the UK? Almost all UK gun crime is gang related, with the vast majority showing very clear influence of cultural concepts of self protection and ‘macho’ gun carrying. Thats why certain rap artists are not allowed into the UK to have concerts (Snoop dog springs to mind). Most of our gun crime is also tied into drug dealing and the growth of power of the yardies (hey-lets blame the Jamaicans for a change)in the UKs urban centers who are smuggling in guns along with the drugs. There is almost certainly a cultural shift going on that is contributing to the rise in gun crime. ironically the highest instances of gun crime in the UK are from people carrying guns for self protection (since the gang members feel a need to carry them to protect themselves from other gangs). Its all horribly un-regulated, though I’m not entirely sure how regulating their gun use would help since they are all breaking the law left right and center in all sorts of other ways anyway.

                        And we are back to my original premise-that gun laws (pro or anti) are largely a distraction from the real problem.

            2. 

               hybridartifacts

               April 19, 2007

               One stat that seems horribly elusive and extremely open to abuse either way is that for crimes PREVENTED by firearms where nobody at all gets shot-apart from the fact that its probably very difficult to demonstrate that the presence of a firearm for self protection made a significant difference or not. Its largely perceptual and could only be accurately compiled by having the criminals version of what happened or a clearly demonstrable point at which brandishing a gun scares a criminal off. Instance may also be prone to either under reporting or misreporting, making stats hard to prove either way.

               A clear stat showing demonstrable (not conjectural) evidence of brandishing a firearm scaring off criminals would be handy as evidence pro self protection. The only way I can see of doing a study on that which would make sense would be to look at instances where a criminal is either unarmed or has no firearm (perhaps armed with a knife) and the victim is armed with a firearm and the crime fails and no injury to the victim results. Comparing instances of this happening could make a difference to the argument for and against self protection. A rough glance at the FBI stats suggests that compared to gun deaths, deaths by other means of attack are only a quarter though, so your likelihood of death by means other than a gun is considerably lower.

               Aggravated assault stats are a bit tricky since they will include a lot of casual brawls, and thus a lot of found or improvised weapons, fists etc. It makes looking at weapon attacks a bit harder and makes the firearms stats lower in proportion. Certainly just under half of all robberies in the FBI stats involve the felon using a gun though. At that point I suspect having a gun is far less of a deterrent than in instances involving other weapons or no weapon, since its probable that the deterrent factor of self protection is having a gun when the felon does not, and we end up back at the justifiable homicide stats. Its horribly complex…

               http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/aggravated_assault.html

               One thing about the whole debate is that its complex and interesting-trawling through actual data can certainly reveal big weakness in some of the arguments people use. Thats no surprise though, as many of the argument’s will be determined by a persons existing position and cultural concepts.

               I think that being British my own view tends toward one very common in my culture-that firearms makes us less safe-even in the hands of the police. We would rather be stabbed and survive than shot and die. Seeing guns spooks us-makes us feel threatened, not safer, and we very very rarely ever see a gun except at airports. The only times I have ever seen a gun have been in America, sporting use of shotguns. or doing target shooting in the UK with an air rifle. Thats a cultural perspectives as much as anything else.

               My comment about the wild west is more about such cultural perceptions-how people may see a situation apart from actual stats, and especially how people from other countries perceive the arguments currently being used in the States around the issue of gun control (specifically that if the students were armed the situation would have been improved). Cultural perceptions make a big difference both to the instance of gun crime, its form and how people relate to it and to gun control. Which comes back to my point that perhaps the gun crime issue in America is ultimately a cultural not a legal one.

               Reply
         2. 

            hybridartifacts

            April 19, 2007

            I hope all this discussion has been as engaging for you as for me-my own position is perhaps slightly more pro concealed carry permit for the USA (wouldn’t work in a month of sundays in the UK though) than before-at least from the perspective that it seems to generally involves some sensible safety training. I am still convinced gun laws are largely irrelevant and thats its cultural more than anything though.

            How are you finding things now? Being emotionally close to such an incident can be a little harrowing-I used to regularly walk along a route from work that was bombed by the IRA a few hours later than my normal time (I could actually have walked past the bomb) and it kinda threw me for a while. One always thinks ‘what if’.

            Reply