4/18/2007
IT’S NOT THE GUN THAT NEEDED CONTROL
Oh, glorious Internet. Thanks to you, it now takes only a few hours for any news story of suitable gravity to become the launching pad for several million personal opinions. I can’t escape that conclusion now that the Virginia Tech tragedy has caused us to start placing blame everywhere except where it rightfully lies.
While the whacked-out theories go everywhere from overly-liberal immigration policies (crikey, he was eight when he came here) to (predictably) the teaching of evolution in science classes, I’ve been thinking all along, as the gun control issue has quickly taken over this story, that it’s probably true Cho would have had a hard time killing so many people so quickly if he hadn’t had a gun. But you can’t make the leap to saying that if he hadn’t had a gun, nothing bad would have happened. He might have gone to beat the crap out of a young woman, then gotten the crap kicked out of him by the RA. Cho would’ve been arrested and kicked out of Virginia Tech. That would have been less tragic, to be sure. But it’s not good enough to qualify as “better.” I’m not prepared to say that it’s alright for young men to beat up young women they’re obsessed with, so long as it keeps those young men from shooting people. The gun was just along for the ride here.
Cho was 23 years old and apparently completely incapable of dealing with anger or frustration, or of forming a healthy relationship with anyone. Maybe he was mentally ill or, maybe, as Nikki Giovanni suggested, he was just mean. Whatever is the case, he should’ve been able to control his emotions by this point in his life. There is no such thing as “a 23-year-old kid.” 23-year-olds are adults. We can blame Cho’s parents for not teaching him coping skills. We can blame university culture for being so focused on relationships and good times, isolating those who can’t participate or are just naturally awkward socially. We can blame society in general for glorifying violence. We can blame guns and gun culture for making killing so easy. We can blame the Virginia Tech administration for not immediately knowing Cho was responsible for the first shooting and still on the loose. We can blame the Great Gazoo if it makes us feel better. Cho isn’t around to blame any more, and what’s the point of blaming somebody who can’t be punished?
8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Well said, Mark.
Comment by Bryan S. Slick — 4/19/2007 @ 7:18 am
Hear, hear!
Comment by Dave — 4/20/2007 @ 10:08 am
I’m having trouble understanding what you mean by this sentence: ‘But it’s not good enough to qualify as “better.” ‘ 30 fewer people dead wouldn’t be better?
Comment by Harry — 4/23/2007 @ 10:20 am
Better, but not better enough. Sorry for not making myself more clear.
Comment by Mark — 4/23/2007 @ 11:57 am
That caught my eye, too… but I assumed that you meant what you say you meant in your clarification above.
I do think that the ready availability of guns and ammunition in the United States is a serious problem, but I’m not sure what’s to be done about it in any case. The Second Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to arm themselves if they so choose.
The guns weren’t the problem in this case; Cho was the problem. I’m not sure that a society can prevent the creation of sociopaths like him. I believe that we have to keep trying to do so, but I’m not sure that it’s possible. (I also wonder if there’s enough goodwill in any society to get a serious effort from more than a small minority of the population; I doubt it.)
Thanks again for the post, Mark.
Comment by Bryan S. Slick — 4/23/2007 @ 6:15 pm
Guns are a problem in this country. We’ve done a great job at making all sorts of wonderful guns. We’ve done a lousy job of figuring out when, how, and from whom those guns should be properly restricted. Take away semi-automatics, and he wouldn’t have been able to pump 100 bullets into people. I won’t get into the Second Amendment thing. But I will say that now is not the time to start passing gun control laws. There would be too many over-reactions and ill-considered statements pro and con. (But Cho is a prime example of why the death penalty is not the great inhibitor that some would claim.)(Not to get off-topic or anything)
Comment by Harry — 4/23/2007 @ 9:04 pm
Well said, I agree whole heartedly.
Harry, fine take away guns completely, but then are you going to take away baseball bats, or chainsaws, or automobiles for that matter? yes a gun makes it easy to cause lots of damage with little effort. But the same can be said about people behind the wheels of cars. He could have just as easily grabbed a bat or a sword and went on a rampage killing many.
What is important to remember is that this person was going to cause tragedy one way or another, be it with a gun or not. Gun control laws sound great and an easy fix. But really should we look at controlling the person? After all they are the one doing the killing, the gun is just the tool used.
Comment by Brady — 5/4/2007 @ 9:36 am
I may only be 17 years old, but gun control is not needed.Guns don’t kill, husbands that come home early kill people.There are a lot of people in the world that enjoy friendly hunting.But there are those few people in every crowd that can ruin the fun for everyone.I mean yes guns are dangerous but that doesn’t mean you have to take our guns away just because somebody on an illegal drug kills another person.But hey I’m just a kid right.
Comment by terry — 5/8/2007 @ 11:03 am