Gun Control Causes Gun Tragedy
By FredMaidment Posted in Culture | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yesterday, 25 year old Kimveer Gill opened fire in a crowded Dawson College dining hall in Montreal, Quebec. While reports are unclear as to whether he was using a rifle or a handgun (latest reports contend it was a pistol), it is clear that one girl is dead and nineteen more were wounded, six of them critically.
While I haven't read anything yet, I am certain that this incident will be used by the gun control lobby to express a need for "more gun control," just like Columbine was used.
Read on...
I see it a different way. In Canada, just as in the U.S., having a gun on a school campus is a crime. In fact, gun ownership was heavily restricted in Canada of the past several decades, far more than in the United States.
So why is it that these school shootings occur, even in countries with strict gun control laws like Canada? I think it is a simple matter of convenience.
Successful new businesses do not operate in the same market as the major competitor in the market; they find a niche where they can operate without being noticed. Armies rarely attack opposing armies head-on; they find the gaps between units and attack where resistance will be less. Terrorists attack "soft targets" where security is light, rather than heavily defended military bases. Criminals rob convenience stores more often than banks or armored cars; convenience store cashiers are generally unarmed while banks and armored cars have armed guards.
In the same manner, school shootings take place on college and high school campuses because they know that the students cannot fight back. After all, most students abide by the rules. Most students don't want to get expelled or face criminal charges for bringing a gun when they can just leave it at home. Therefore, the students on campus are relatively easy targets who will suffer high casualties because they cannot fight back.
This is especially true if the gunman can get inside a building, particularly one like a dining hall. Dining halls generally have only one student entrance; emergency exits everywhere are largely ignored until they are needed. A gunman can enter a facility such as this, block the main entrance, and fire wildly into the crowd. As confusion sets in, many will freeze, making easy targets. As they run for the emergency exits, the clumps of people at these exits make it hard to miss when the targeting is indescriminate. When those who choose to flee are gone, those who hid are in serious danger of further attack.
"What about the police?" gun control advocates will ask. "Surely they will stop this attacker!"
Yeah, right. Only if we have armed guards in every building (who would be the first targets of any attacker) and SWAT teams at the ready on each college and high school campus. Further, police are taught to assess the situation, report, and act slowly and safely. The movie image of a lone police officer rushing in with no knowledge of the situation gunning down the attackers is pure fantasy. Such an officer would likely end up as a statistic, not a hero.
"Surely if we made all guns illegal and confiscated them, this wouldn't happn!"
Not hardly. About forty percent of violent crimes are committed by convicted felons, who aren't legally allowed to own guns anyway. Fifty six percent of violent crimes are committed by people with a criminal record. These people genereally aren't buying guns from licensed, responsible dealers. They steal guns or buy them on our very real, very large black market. If we criminalize gun ownership, only the criminals will own guns. Besides, a person does not need a gun to kill and injure a large number of people. A car is just as effective. An article of clothing will often suffice.
The responsible action here is not to enact more gun control, but to reduce gun control. Years ago, it was legal to have a gun on a college campus. ROTC organizations had rifle drill teams and schools often had competitive shooting teams. A close family member of mine still has his bolt-action .22 rifle, which he kept in his locker while he was in high school. He used it in his Junior ROTC drills. He wasn't alone.
Now, let me tell you what would have happened if this incident had happened without current gun control legislation:
Mr. Gill would have entered the building, weapon drawn. He would have opened fire, wounding a couple of people. As he stopped to reload, law-abiding gun owners would have drawn their weapons, opening fire on Mr. Gill, wounding or killing him. Incident over.
Except the incident wouldn't have happened. Mr. Gill would have gone elsewhere to commit his crime. Perhaps, fearing his crime would have been totally unremarkable with only one or two people wounded, he would not have committed the crime at all.
That is why crime is down in Right to Carry states.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
If you choose not to arm yourself and you encounter such a predator then you are no more than prey. And you are relying completely upon his mercy for your survival.
Fortuna Favet Fortibus
Of course someone would use them, but they are using them now. The real question is do you prefer a madman to be able to inflict carnage, a la Columbine, or do you prefer the intended victims be able to protect themselves?
And you think the result of 100 untrained people randomly shooting at the attacker would have better results?
"The Babel fish could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D." - HHG2TG
Every day in America private citizens use their private weapons in self defense. It works.
And we should lift the band on Full Automatic Weapons, personal nuclear weapons and flame throwers, never know when you might need the firepower.
As someone who grew up around guns and think of them as just another tool, nether a good tool or a bad tool, just a tool, I don't get some of the pro-gun arguments.
Heck, make me King for a week and I'll change the law of the land to let anyone who can pass a background check, a skills test, a test on the law and a yearly proficiency test have a concealed carry permit. That's treating guns like what they are tools, tool which those that are skilled to use know how use and not just some darn toy. But I tend to be a radical.
Strawmen have rights too you know. You can't go around beating them up like that.
As a matter of fact, I do...
I'd rather have 100 law-abiding gun owners "randomly" shooting at an assailant than one law-breaking nutcase running rampant with no one to oppose him.
Of course, "randomly" is a subjective term. I think the assailant yesterday was shooting a lot more "randomly" than any law-abiding gun owner would be...
42
shooting anything. It's obtained by the possibility that those 100 untrained (and a few trained) people might be there. If I'm planning on shooting up the library I'm currently sitting in (I'm not, btw) I don't much care if another 100 people start blasting randomly. I do care that one of them might hit me. Which is the whole point, and why crime rates always go down after passage of "right to carry" laws.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
RFYoung
Only if you were educated in today's public schools could your scenerio happen and possibly not even then.
Real people will attact their enemy. There may be some innocent persons damaged, but the overall damage to the community in the future will be abated.
Some individuals are the cost for continuing the race.
In a practical sense, gun control is fine where it stands now. I believe most gun control probably violates the Constitution, but I think the chances of that being reversed is 1 in ten million. Just don't give us any more please.
RFYoung
All gun control violates the constitution.
Do you not understand "shall not"??
I don't own a gun although I'm OK with the rights of people to own reasonable weapons...but guns in HS? You really think kids in HS are mature enough to handle that? I'm only 11 years out of HS, and I can't believe how bad the disrespect has gotten towards teachers and other students. My wife subbed for a bit before our first child and I have friends who are routinely cursed at and totally disrespected. My wife was called a b**ch to her face, by a 15 year old.
College campus...maybe then we can think about it, but no way should students ever be allowed to carry a gun in HS.
JMHO
- IJ
during deer and dove season nearly all the guys had a shotgun or rifle in their car in the school parking lot. No one ever got hurt with one or even threatened with one.
I dunno, I'm appalled with the way these kids act. It's nothing like when I was in HS 11 years ago, and I don't know when you were in HS but from your posts I gather it was a while ago. I wouldn't trust them to handle a liter of diet coke and a handful of mentos, let alone a gun.
What does this mean? Probably that I'm just getting old. :)
"Back in my day..."
-IJ
If every generation were right in its disappointment with the next generation, we'd be back in the stone age by now.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
...I know every generation looks at the younger one and thinks we're doomed. I'm sure it was done to my generation just as I begin to do it to the next.
Like you inferred, it all works out.
-IJ
I'm only 5 years out of HS, and I already have a 'those damn kids' attitude.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
The weapons we had in HS would have been useful to most armies in the world. The worst thing you could have done in those days was to mishandle a gun.
RFYoung
I am fifty-eight. When I went to third grade in Brewer Elementary School, New Brighton, PA every boy carried a knife with a five or six inch blade. We played knife throwing games at recess.
By seventh grade we each had two guns, a shot gun and a deer rifle. There were only a few pitiful boys in class opening day of deer season.
By ninth grade, most of us roamed the woodlots unsupervised. It was not uncommon to see boys walking along the highways carrying a gun to or from hunting.
We never killed anyone or even thought about it. It may have been because at home and in school we were taught values. Right and Wrong, some things being better than others, and the expectation of the conmmunity that you act in accordance with commonly held belief. Also, we were taught the sanctity of life. No one aborted my baby brother.
FredMaidment,
You accuse the left of exploiting this tragic event to advance an agenda:
"While I haven't read anything yet, I am certain that this incident will be used by the gun control lobby to express a need for 'more gun control,' just like Columbine was used."
Then you go on to exploit this tragic event to advance your own.
Truly pathetic.
bA
stating the obvious.
Yes, I'm advancing an agenda. But my agenda is 1) Constitutional, and 2) stands the test of real-life practice. Those who shout "Columbine!" do not have any ideas that have withstood any real-life test. Notice that in D.C., there are no handguns, but violent crime is monstrous. Notice that in right-to-carry states, crime is down.
As for high school students with guns, I see no problem with this. I believe that the reason students are so disrespectful is that we constantly disrespect and infantalize them. If we treat them like children, they are more likely act like children. If we treat them like responsible adults, they are more likely to act like responsible adults.
By the by, I'm only 7 years out of high school.
i'm glad you at least admit your agenda.
however, by stating that it is constitutional, you seem to be implying that the gun control agenda is unconstitutional. that simply isn't the case. both agendas are on equal legal footing.
also, when you state that your agenda stands the test of real-life practice, so too does the agenda pushed by gun control advocates. for every example you point to, there will be a counterexample. the correlation between gun control and violence in dc has an inverse relationship to the correlation between gun control and violence in the uk. that is to say, no statistics exist in a vacuum. analyzing numbers in such a way ignores the root issue and allows each side to justify their agenda.
having said all that, my point here is not to get caught up in the gun control vs. gun rights debate. my goal was simply to bring light to the fact that you are guilty of doing exactly what it is you are criticizing.
bA
You are actually holding up the UK as an example of gun control that works. London is every bit as dangerous a city as any in the US... and more dangerous if you measure it in terms of criminals breaking into your house while you and your family are at home. They don't care that you are at home. They know you aren't armed. They have every reason to believe they will have the advantage in any confrontation, whether they have a gun or knife or any other weapon.
In the US, somebody that goes breaking into people's homes (for whatever nefarious reason) while they are in the house has a very short life expectancy. That's why it isn't as much of a problem here.
Guns are the great equalizer. Anyone can be a threat with a gun. A 120lb untrained female with a kitchen knife isn't going to be a threat to anyone but herself. The criminals are well aware of this.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
In every instance where states have passed "right to carry" laws, violent crime has gone down. In every instance where the gun control folks have had their way, crime goes up.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Gun control is effective in the UK? really?
you may want to read this:
http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
I also like when people start asserting how much safer it is in the UK due to gun control laws. UKs system probably has more to do with their search and seizure laws and other laws afforded to the constabulary that would be neither tolerated, nor constitutional, here.
If you are quick to note how fabulous european nations are because of their gun laws you may not want to look at countries like Finland where roughly 50% of their people have guns.
And yes, there is very little about the gun control agenda that is Constitutional.
How in God's name is talking about solutions to a problem "exploiting" the problem. If a train derails because of brake failure, how does talking about better safer fail-safes on the tracks amount to exploitation? What pathetic thinking. How many multi-victim gun massacres have happened inside a big city police station? None. Those buildings are just crawling with guns--guns everywhere. Maybe we can learn something from that fact. Don't you think?
I am exploiting this tragedy. However, accusing me of dirty poole when such incidents have so often been used by the "other side" is just a bit of ridiculous.
Okay, I should stop commenting on my own editorial...
you are only defending your point of view.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
your implication is that the police station is the safest place to be because you know of no multi-victim gun massacres that have occured inside of one. you conclude the reason is because of the numerous guns.
the fallacy of that argument is illustrated by the following analogy:
there have been no multi-victim gun massacres in my home. therefore, it is as equally safe as a police station. however, there are no guns in my home.
i am going to go out on a limb and assume that you agree with FredMainment in his speculative scenario:
"Mr. Gill would have entered the building, weapon drawn. He would have opened fire, wounding a couple of people. As he stopped to reload, law-abiding gun owners would have drawn their weapons, opening fire on Mr. Gill, wounding or killing him. Incident over."
let us not forget that there do exist in canada law-abiding gun owners. many of them. owning a gun is not, in and of itself, a crime in canada. therefore, in FredMainment's scenario, there should have been someone to open fire on mr. gill. of course there wasn't. the fallacy of the above scenario is that it assumes when gun restrictions are lifted, everyone will own a gun and nobody will be afraid to use a gun. that result is not a logical extension of lifting gun control.
bA
I have to reply here...
I am not "criticising" anyone of voicing their opinion. Indeed, in one of my comments, I stated it is everyone's right.
What I am criticising is their critical thinking process. They assume that if we make guns illegal, no one will have them. This is patently untrue, and even if it were it solves nothing. Guns get into the hands of criminals whether they are legal or not. And removing guns from the populace does not solve crime (as evidenced by the increases in the use of swords by criminals in Australia following gun confiscations there).
The solution is not to take away guns. The solution is to find the root cause of violence. I have done studies on my own using secondary data and find that two factors, population density and poverty, seem to have a significant effect on crime rates. I did not include my statistics because a) they are unpublished, b) I have not verified the secondary data and c) I've actually lost the files (computer incident) and have not bothered to recreate them.
In other words, as people feel dispossesed and distanced from their neighbors in crowded cities, they become more likely to lash out at people whom they care little about and who never cared about them.
Want to reduce that feeling of isolation? Tell your kids to stand up for the unpopular kids; to be neighborly with the people around them; to be friendly even if they don't like someone; and to respect, well, just about everybody regardless of their religion, race and what-have-you. Want to reduce poverty? Well, that's trickier, but in my opinion, there was a lot less poverty when the government wasn't ecouraging people to stay poor.
Everybody's got a right to opine. That's our right as Americans. I'm just contradicting what always comes following such an incident.
By the way, I have read some grumblings now...
I would suggest adding "Yours" to make it more friendly.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"
"It is better to have one and not need it, than need one and not have it." I'm sure that is a quote from somewhere.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
An armed society is a polite society.
Also, see www.scottbomb.com/kids_with_guns.html
I see this as a parental responsibility issue. Look back at all these cases of kids shooting up their schools and classmates and you will find broken homes and absent parents.
I'm not trying to abdicate the responsibility of the shooter, but the commonality indicates a deeper issue. Modern families are breaking down in many cases, for any number of reasons. The explosion of technology and mass media has provided the fuel for these formerly benign malcontents to express their rage. It's tragic, but almost always preventable, to my mind.
PS...I thought "gun control" meant using two hands!!
will certainly revise and update his movie Bowling for Columbine to include this shooting incident in Montreal, Canada, won't he?
About the crazy gun culture they have in Canada and how it is the cause of all this violence.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Give everyone a gun and no one will use them... uh huh