|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Insuring Mass Murders like Virginia Tech
by
Robert Betts
(Age: 61)
copyright 04-17-2007
Age Rating: 7 to 127
|
 |
| |
Actually our US institutions: law enforcement, judges, lawyers and legislators are doing an excellent job of making sure that mass murders by lunatics become as commonplace as the common cold.
How so? Ensuring mass murder is simple. All it requires is one lunatic who is armed and a mass of people who are not armed. A large portion of the US population believes that guns kill people so if we make manhole covers of all guns then the problem will be solved... or will it?
A carpenter uses a hammer and saw. If hammers and saws are forbidden then you can bet the carpenter would find some way to acquire the tools of his trade. So it is with mass murderers or ordinary criminals. They need guns and bombs so they get them. When guns are outlawed and honest citizens arrested and charged for defending themselves (see this example) then obviously only criminals and police will have guns.
So? Then the police will protect us ! They didn't at Columbine nor did they at Virginia Tech. They simply could not have been on scene in time even if they wanted and tried. The only gun on scene at Virginia Tech belonged to the lunatic gunman.
Question... If you were a student in one of the classrooms that the Virginia Tech lunatic entered to kill you and your friends would you:
a) be happy to be unarmed and hope you don't die?
b) prefer to have been taught how to use a firearm in self defense?
c) be happy that you don't have a gun because your government forbids and persecutes people who try to defend themselves? You could end up in trouble.
d) prefer to simply have a loaded weapon with or without any training.
The hatred of guns is so ingrained in many people that the truth never occurs to them... guns have no intelligence. Without intelligence of any kind, guns cannot kill people but people kill people.
Now that we know how to insure that mass murders happen, learning how to stop them should be quite simple. Honest citizens must be allowed, no, encouraged to own and carry guns. They must not be persecuted if they find that they have to either produce them as a show of force or even go so far as use them. However, some schools are installing metal detectors to make sure that no student will have the means to defend himself and his classmates against any lunatic with an uzi.
By encouraging people to become trained in the use of weapons for self-defense and to arm themselves, the death toll might well be a lot smaller when one armed citizen puts a stop to the rampage and the lunatic's life. Think... if one, only one of the Virginia Tech students had been armed as many as 32 lives might have been saved, an infinite amount of trauma avoided and many others would not have been wounded. Is it really worth the cost that we pay by allowing our government to disarm us?
We live in an age when 8-10 year old gang members are known to kill. We need to leave our fantasy world, see the world as it is and realize the truth... that the only way we can prevent mass murder is to encourage and allow young people to become trained in proper firearms use and arm themselves. How many lunatics would start rampages if they knew that some of their victims might be able to shoot back? Yes there will be deaths anyways. Individuals will be killed but we might not see 33 dead and 20-some wounded in a fell swoop.
R. Betts
|
Help Us Stop Plagiarism -
Nearly all works at PnP are original. However a few people choose to plagiarize.
To check, choose a phrase from the work, then either drag and drop to the search box or copy and paste.
click on search and works at Google will be shown which match. Just to be sure, please do this before
you recommend or rate the work highly...
|
 |
|
|
|
Select a Random Work
from Stories
|
|
|
Comments on this Article/Poem:
Click on the commenter's name to see their Author's Page
11-13-2007 Lauren T.
I really can't side with anything here, but you make a great arguement.
If we were taught how to defend outselves, i think we'd be better off
|
11-07-2007 Chermayn Fong
There are always pros and cons through ideas, and it's not necessarily right or wrong. In a way I do agree with you, but in another way I do not. Why?
Well, let's say some of the students did have guns and knew how to use them...What about when they get drunk? What about when they loose their tempers? What about if they turn out like that jerk that killed all the other people?
Wouldn't the rate worsen? It's practically saying:
Let's all get our kids to wear guns.
But of course, I also to disagree with my own point, because in this case there's no perfect solution. Or maybe we'll just all wear bullet proof vests everyday. Wouldn't that be much better than holding a gun?
|
09-04-2007 Marilyn Mackenzie
Wow. You've written this well. (Although I believe I found one place where you meant to write "murderers" and wrote "murders" instead.) And you've given us something to ponder. But... I cannot imagine a world where anyone and everyone could have a gun. Not when the emotions of people today are so fragile.
Even back in the 1800's, all people didn't walk around with guns. Except, perhaps in the wild west. :)
I think that if I truly thought that every person in a restaurant or in a school building COULD have a gun, I would lock myself up at home and never come out.
|
08-13-2007 Eric Gasparich
I couldn't agree much more here.
You never hear about shootings like this at a police station, or a military base, or an National Rifle Association convention. I wonder why?
Also, bear in mind, we are a nation of nearly 300 million. It's a wonder more kooks like this haven't gone off, for there is a huge pool of people to draw from.
The thing to realize is that the police do not much prevent crime. They deter it a bit maybe, but otherwise they are purely reactionary. They only come into play once a crime has already been committed, that is, once there are already victims. Then they go into action as executors of the law, and try to incarcerate the perpetrators.
It's scary for a lot of people to realize, but the first line of defense is you. The founding fathers were pretty cagey about that. The Second Amendment is Second and not Tenth for a reason.
|
06-03-2007 Jane L.
Good point. But you know, robbers tend to hesitate if there's a fence they have to cut through to break into a house because of the time it would take to cut it. If you think of it that way, of course Cho Seung Hui could have gotten his pistols in some way illegally if there were more strict gun laws, but he would have first hesitated a little, which could have made a big difference.
|
04-25-2007 Robert Betts
Jefferson basically said it is the duty of citizens to overthrow a corrupt government. Without means to do that, the people serve the government rather than the other way around.
The Second Amendment -
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It is short and specific, however many people have tried desperately to infringe this right as much as possible. Militia has a rather broad definition and can easily be construed to mean a populace that might, of necessity, overthrow the government. Beyond self-protection, gun ownership also helps to keep the government "honest." Jefferson felt the government should fear the people not the people fear the government.
Brian:
I did edit the lunatic reference which you took exception to so that it would be clearer.
bob
|
04-24-2007 Brian Dickenson
Well done Bob, you have certainly stirred the pot with this.
Here in the UK we have draconian gun laws, our government is proposing that even pellet and replica guns be made illegal.
However, since the wholesale banning of firearms was introduced, and the ordinary law abiding citizen was prohibited for owning guns, our gun crime is going through the roof, hardly a week goes by without someone being wounded or killed by guns.
Many years ago I ran a gun club, we shot paper targets, not people.
Our local firearms policeman at that time explained to me why we had gun laws. He claimed that they were introduced at the time of the Russian revolution during the first world war.
Our government of those days suddenly realised that an armed populace could overthrow governments. This is why gun laws were introduced here, I believe that this reasoning still applies.
The only exception that I take to your article is that you state that only lunatics kill people. This implies that all our armed forces and our police, should be classed as lunatics.
There must be many members here at P-n-P who have served in the forces or police, who have shot and killed people. Were they lunatics?
Apart from this I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of the law abiding citizen being allowed to carry a gun.
|
04-22-2007 Nancy Pawley
Robert,
The American public needs to think about what they would actually do if they were confronted with a situation similar to what occurred at Columbine or Virginia Tech...I believe in some form of gun control, but more importantly than that, the right to defend your own life with whatever means are necessry and available.
Nancy
|
04-21-2007 Frank Fields
After this comment, I doubt that I'll have much more to say on this particular subject. However since I was addressed personally, and in rather quarrelsome tones, it should be mentioned that I returned to the U.S. in 1967. 40 years ago. My wife and I de-boarded in New Orleans. The pistol, a Ruger .22 caliber magnum, with inter-changeable cylinders; one for the long-rifle cartridges, one for the magnum cartridges was purchased from a local gun store recommended by a fellow employee, while I was employed by the U.S. Government overseas. I obtained the gun with police permit, as I was a returning federal employee. The New Orleans Police Department gave me the permit required to purchase, own, and hold that gun--or any other, for that matter.
I was also a Police Commissioner for the Panamanian national police force. Better known, accurately, as La Guardia Nacional. (The National Guard.) It was my pleasure to have their uniformed officers assist me with whatever needed doing--without question!
When we arrived at the Canadian border, after seeing my credentials, the Canadian Police or customs people, had no problem with my having a gun in their country.
We were in Canada for two reasons. One to visit for about a week at Expo '67. The other to make inquiry at the Canadian government office which handled the sale of government lands.
Expo '67 was quite enjoyable, as were all the Canadian people that we met. Eager to help, polite, respectful, generous, and even among the merchants, an attitude of sincere desire to help us acquire what we wanted or needed, as opposed to trying to sell us what they had, even if it was inadequate. We were never insulted, or made to fell uncomfortable in any way.
As a side note, I had run out of cash money. We went into a bank, the president was good enough to talk with us, again, after my credentials were presented, and he was pleased to authorize the cashing of one of my checks so we could proceed on with our visit in his country.
At the office I went to inquire about land purchase, I was, again, treated with every dignity, courtesy and respect. I was, to my surprise, invited to take lease of anywhere from 10 to 20 square miles of land. I was also guaranteed, in writing, in perpetuity, by the Canadian government, free and clear title to an acre of land around any building that I erected.
There has never been any reason for me to do anything illegal. In any country. And I've been fortunate to travel to some. Whatever the laws were, and as they were applicable, I was more than pleased to comply with.
The final issue remains one of gun control. It does not involve personal attitudes, national comparisons, and emotionalism beyond knowing and doing what is right and correct for one's own self, family, community, state and country.
On an ending note, I will simply state that I am personal witness to the horrors that are created among a defenseless population. We should have gun control in the U.S. We should allow any citizen to be trained and educated in the use of, especially, hand guns. Further, it should not be questionable among ourselves, whether a
Constitutional freedom, should be adversely affected by the opinions of those beyond the scope of this country's laws.
|
04-20-2007 Robert Betts
May 28, 1975 Brampton, Ontario, Canada Centennial Secondary School massacre. Michael Slobodian, 16, killed a teacher and student and wounded 13 others at Brampton Centennial Secondary School in Brampton, Ont., before shooting himself.
October 27, 1975 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada St. Pius X High School massacre. 18-year-old Robert Poulin opened fire on his class at St. Pius X High School, killing one and wounding five before turning the gun on himself. Poulin had raped and stabbed his 17-year-old friend Kim Rabot to death prior to the incident. A book was written on the incident called Rape Of A Normal Mind
December 6, 1989 Montreal, Canada Marc Lépine took a hunting rifle into École Polytechnique de Montréal, killed 14 women, wounded four men and ten women before committing suicide.
August 24, 1992 Montreal, Quebec, Canada Former professor Dr. Valery Fabrikant went on a shooting rampage at Montreal's Concordia University killing four.
April 28, 1999 W. R. Myers High School shooting - Taber, Alberta, Canada; On the 28th of April Smith walked into the school grounds armed with a sawed off .22 rifle. He immediately opened fire on three students, hitting two. He then shot one of the students, Jason Lang, killing him.
September 13, 2006 Montreal, Quebec, Canada The Dawson College shooting occurred on September 13, 2006 at Dawson College, a CEGEP in Westmount near downtown Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The perpetrator, Kimveer Gill, began shooting outside the de Maisonneuve Boulevard entrance to the school, and moved towards the atrium by the cafeteria on the main floor. One victim died at the scene, while another 19 were injured, eight of whom were listed in critical condition with six requiring surgery. The gunman later committed suicide by shooting himself in the head, after being shot in the arm by police.
Tight Canadian gun controls did not prevent any of these lunatics from obtaining and using firearms. But I would submit for thought that those laws might have contributed to the fact that the victims were unarmed and unable to defend themselves.
US population is 298 million. Canada is 32 million a bit more than a tenth of the US so 6 shootings would correspond to 55.8 in the US, viewing the shootings on a per capita basis. On this page I count 27 shootings in the US, which means that the per capita shootings in Canada are roughly twice that of the US... so which country is more violent?
I truly believe that if the anti-gun faction were to examine the facts instead of basing their position on emotionalism they would be forced to draw the same conclusion that I and many others have... that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns and the rest of us will be at their mercy, mercy which they don't possess
bob
|
04-19-2007 Jordan Screws
I see someone shares the same beliefs that I hold, and that is refreshing. After the fallout over the unfortunate Virginia Tech shooting incident, I feared that this incident would be ammunition (forgive the pun) for gun-control interests. If it keeps going long enough, it will be. Like you said, there is no law on this Earth that can prevent a lunatic from getting hold of a gun and doing what he pleases if the citizens he targets are not capable of fighting back. The solution is to allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns and be trained in their use to guard against threats wherever they may present themselves.
Every time I hear a cry to disarm the populace of America, I have to fight the urge to vomit in disgust. Disarming law-abiding citizens is NOT the solution: it is issuing an open invitation for criminals to rape and pillage as they wish! And anyone who has the audacity to defend themselves from the menace is compensated by having to face harsh penalties from a legal system that is supposed to protect victims of injustice! This is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned for their creation... I know times have changed, but the right to self-defense has not changed. And all the people who want to sell out America's centuries-old right for all law-abiding and sane citizens to own weapons for self-defense in order to get a moment's security should pay attention to Benjamin Franklin when he said "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither." I feel that holds true, particularly now.
I do not know how many others share our sentiment, but you know that you do not stand alone on this matter. Hopefully more sane minds will stand and make themselves heard over the noise of the disarmament lobby before it is too late. A good, thought-provoking article on the matter that uses common sense to get the point across. People like you who know the rights and responsibilities of an American citizen and who speak out in their defense are true patriots!
Jordan of the CC
|
04-19-2007 David Pekrul
William,
If you, in fact, entered Canada with a hand gun, then you did it illegally. Hand guns are not permitted to cross the border. All hand guns in Canada must be registered, and every time it leaves your residence, it must be reported as to where it is to be taken and for how long.
I have heard stories of Americans who cross our border, and when challenged about having a handgun on their person, tell the customs officers that they have a right to carry it and it is none of their business.
Well, guess what! It IS our business, and in Canada you do NOT have the right to carry it. Owning hand guns in this country carry strict regulations and that is the way we want it. If you want to bring your gun into our country, you are not welcome.
I lived in the USA for a short time and I will never do it again. It was a mistake. My wife is American and she is so glad to be out of there.
Your society has a real problem, and the right to bear arms is one of them.
I have heard that the American society is the most violent society in the world. I believe it. Although I have a lot of American friends and relatives, I would never want to live there again.
I really feel sorry for you; I wish it could be different.
|
04-18-2007 Robert Betts
I'd just like to add this link :
An exhaustive gun control study
|
04-18-2007 Frank Fields
I was living in Colorado when the Columbine tragedy occurred. Same town, couple of miles away. Not the point. Point is I was there. I knew the police and school authorities had advance information, "triggers," if you will, about the young men responsible for that monstrous act of murder.
They didn't act on those triggers. As a result children are dead. If they had been allowed to act on them, legally, Columbine wouldn't be remembered as a slaughterhouse, but as one of the finest high schools in the country.
I have lived in Panama the country, traveled through the Gulf States, up the Eastern seaboard into Canada, back into the US across to California and finally settled, after our road trip, to finish up University in Colorado. Greeley, to be specific. For that entire time, even in Canada, I was armed. It was never necessary, thankfully, for me to ever have to use my gun. But if it had been necessary, my family and I wouldn't have been at the mercy of an unhinged mind. There is nothing to respect or disrespect. There is only defense of self, family, property, and community.
Wild West? Perhaps. But even there they didn't want me to register my gun. Told me I could slap it on my hip and walk down main street if I wanted to. And that I could that safely. I liked that attitude. I didn't have to worry about some crazy idiot wanting to harm me or my family.
It is a truth: if you can't defend or protect yourself, someone will come along desirous of what you have. Even if it's your life. And they will take it.
If you can defend and protect yourself, then whosoever might want to take advantage of you, won't.
The horrors of Nazi Germany, Czechoslovakia, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, India, Africa, everywhere in the world where you have a defenseless population, there are monstrous crimes against humanity being committed. And crimes for which the perpetrators aren't held accountable.
There is nothing to respect or disrespect. There is only defense of self, family, property and community.
|
04-18-2007 Robert Betts
If you were in that classroom, hiding under a desk, praying you wouldn't die and Jerry, the guy next to you, who had also hit the deck, pulled out a pistol, took careful aim and killed the gunman would you chastise him for carrying a gun? Or would you praise God and thank him. How would you feel if Jerry was sentenced to life in prison for killing the gunman?... That is the reality in the US. Those who protect themselves and others are subject to life imprisonment instead of being lauded as the heroes they are.
Cops are not the only ones who can act responsibly... in fact I once had a cop say to me, "I'm hunting you." That is not a cop I would trust with my life.
When I see a gun on a cop's hip it makes me nervous. It would also make me nervous if it were a classmate who I didn't know. Carrying a gun in plain sight is not a good idea because it is scary and any gunman would take that person out first. It needs to be concealed, to be used only when necessary, by a person who is trained and mentally stable. Mental stability cannot be guaranteed, not even in cops... witness the FBI murders of a 14 yr old boy and his mother holding a baby, the Waco disaster and the resultant retaliation of that by McVey.
Police are NOT equipped to deal with campus and school murders. They cannot act in time. The only solution is someone who can act instantly. The only one(s) who can do that is either teachers or students. They cannot act if the government and public opinion has disarmed them and turned them into helpless victims.
bob
|
04-18-2007 David Pekrul
There are two sides to every argument. I respect your opinions but cannot agree with them. This idea sounds like something right out of the wild west.
But then, maybe I don't understand because I am Canadian, and we didn't have a wild west.
All I can say is if I knew that all my classmates were carrying guns, I wouldn't be coming to school.
|
04-17-2007 Frank Fields
I couldn't agree with you more. To reinforce and to re-state, "guns don't kill people, people (lunatics) kill people." On a personal note (and defense of oneself, family and property is always personal!) I grew up with guns. Learned how to use them, cleaned them, admired their functional beauty and deadly possibility. All of which brought feelings of respect. For myself, for others, and for the guns I owned. I won't say weapons, for that isn't how they were perceived nor was it their purpose.
The only way the citizens of this country, and of any community can be protected, is to NOT depend on the police, even their government. They must, by nature of our societal mandates (which we put into place, incidentally), arrive after the horror has been committed, the lives taken, the tragedies committed.
When the citizenry of any country or community, town or village, allow their respect to be taken away in the name of something as vague as National Interest, it cannot but be expected that the fabric of our society, especially, will fall into decline, moral decay, and loss of all the human attitudes which made this country so great to begin with.
Pride and self-sufficiency are the corner-stones of our society and little by little, one by one, WE are allowing them to be removed by power-hungry zealots who know that they are mandated by God, Himself, to operate as they do. That is sheer insanity. Any form of fanaticism is questionably irrational. To not allow a citizenry to defend itself, and to defend itself properly and appropriately, the very governments that are trying to strip away these freedoms that we have paid dearly for, is dooming itself to collapse.
Historically this proves itself out. Even in today's modern world, we see the results of fanaticism imploding. There are issues which deal far beyond a central theme of gun control. By not allowing ourselves to have this guaranteed Constitutional freedom taken away, we are asking our government to collapse upon itself.
Perhaps it should, but not until a system is ready to put in place to fill that "power vacuum." Anarchy should not be rule of law in this country, or in any other, for that matter. To forestall this implosion and render us all subject to every lunatic that does shoulder a killing weapon, we need to recognize that we the people are those who empower. It isn't the other way around. At least it isn't supposed to operate that way. But the more freedoms we relinquish and the more power we delegate, the more we make ourselves and our government subject to anarchy and then tyranny.
I have been too free, all my life, to be able to survive under those forms of domination. But I have also witnessed the loss of spirit, the loss of motivation, the loss of will, the loss of every thing and all, that allowed individuals to be truly free and self-directed as well as self-determined. Hunger, poverty, disease, and more, are the fruits of a citizenry that disallows it's own freedom and self-respect.
All around gun control? Yes! Take away the one thing that I can have to really defend myself with (except paper and pen) and the proof is evident around us already. I won't allow any one, or any thing to be so delusional as to consider that I will voluntarily, in the good of National Interests, relinquish freedoms which I am willing to die for.
William...
of
|
04-17-2007 BJ Niktabe
You are absolutely right that it is people, and not guns that kill. I also agree that a lunatic may think twice if his/her victims may shoot back. If you think about it, would as many people commit murder if they knew they could be sentenced to death for doing so? And I don't mean twenty years after the fact, so that we, as tax payers, can keep them housed, fed and clothed for the rest of their lives. Too many have gotten away with crimes. There are way too many things that could and should be corrected in our system!
|
|
Visitor
Reads: 349
Total Reads: 447
Comments: 18
Author's Page
Email the Author
Add a Comment
Favorite of:
|
|
Welcome !
