By Klaus Rohrich
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Before the blood had dried on the classroom floors, before the bodies had all been positively identified and before the shock of losing a loved one fully hit all the victims' families, the liberal agenda was out in full force. Renewed calls for opening "debate" on gun control emanated from all the usual suspects, the thinking being that if guns are more stringently controlled, then incidents such as happened at Virginia Tech would not happen.
Clearly this is one of those feel-good, pie-in-the-sky tenets to which one can easily subscribe, as on the surface it does sort of make sense. But given the history of those jurisdictions that adopted stringent gun control measures and outright banning of private ownership of guns, it is clearly evident that the banning of guns does nothing to curb gun violence. On the contrary the British, Australian and Canadian experience clearly demonstrate that tighter controls on guns have the obverse effect of that intended, as gun violence in those jurisdictions increased dramatically following the enactment of legislation.
What we must recognize is that people, not guns, cause gun violence and if a crazed individual whose madness has festered long enough sets out to take a lot of other people with him to the afterlife, there is little effect that laws banning guns have on the outcome.
Cho Seung-Hui, the alleged killer of the 33 people at Virginia Tech, was clearly a disturbed young man. His family immigrated to the US in 1992 from South Korea and he was in his senior year at Virginia Tech studying English.
Using the same argument that liberals are advancing about banning guns, a good case could be made for banning immigrants or South Koreans from entering the US, as the alleged perpetrator was an immigrant from South Korea. Ridiculous as this sounds, it is essentially the same argument that the Left is using to bolster its position on banning guns.
Here's a novel thought: What if there were an armed student or professor present who might have stopped Cho in his killing spree. Had another student or a prof been carrying a loaded weapon on campus the tragedy might have ended with a lot less than 33 killed. That's another argument one might use in countering the claptrap the Left uses to try to get guns banned.
We have invested far too much in banning "harmful" things without considering that an informed populace can make up its own mind. In taking away the idea of personal responsibility the doors to the nanny state have been thrown wide open. One is absolved of responsibility for being fat because fast-food retailers are to blame. One is absolved of the responsibility of quitting smoking as the tobacco manufacturers are selling a highly addictive substance (no matter that the state is making a fortune in taxes on that toxic substance). One is absolved of the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy as the fetus can be sucked from the womb and flushed down the sewer.
Yes, the massacre at Virginia Tech is a tragedy. But no amount of foresight could have stopped it. A determined, angry and deranged individual will always find a way to bring death and destruction. Rather than disarm the entire population and attempt to lay the blame at the feet of gun owners, we would be well advised to focus on fostering personal responsibility and weeding out (if possible) unbalanced individuals who would do harm unto others.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement