This is rich. Charles Krauthammer comes out against using the Virginia Tech massacre for political purposes, for example, by reigniting the gun control debate. He writes:
What can be said about the Virginia Tech massacre? Very little. What should be said? Even less. The lives of 32 innocents, chosen randomly and without purpose, are extinguished most brutally by a deeply disturbed gunman. With an event such as this, consisting of nothing but suffering and tragedy, the only important questions are those of theodicy, of divine justice. Unfortunately, in today's supercharged political atmosphere, there is the inevitable rush to get ideological mileage out of the carnage.
The funny thing is that with guys like Krauthammer, we already saw "the inevitable rush to get ideological mileage out of the carnage," the carnage of 9-11.
Take this paragraph here:
It is true that with far stricter gun laws, Cho Seung Hui might have had a harder time getting the weapons and ammunition needed to kill so relentlessly. Nonetheless, we should have no illusions about what laws can do. There are other ways to kill in large numbers, as Timothy McVeigh demonstrated. Determined killers will obtain guns no matter how strict the laws. And stricter controls could also keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens using them in self-defense. The psychotic mass murder is rare; the armed household burglary is not.
Sounds okay, but I don't think Krauthammer would make the same argument about Al Qaeda terrorists. Witness my remix.
It is true that with the Patriot Act and the terrorist surveillance program, the 9-11 hijackers might have had a harder time hijacking the airplane needed to kill so relentlessly. Nonetheless, we should have no illusions about what laws and surveillance programs can do. There are other ways to kill in large numbers, as Cho Seung Hui demonstrated. Determined terrorists will blow up buildings no matter how strict the laws. And the Patriot Act and the terror surveillance program could also ensnare law-abiding citizens who are completely innocent. The psychotic mass murder is rare; government overreach is not.
Whether it's liberals getting hysterical over gun control after the latest school shooting or conservatives getting hysterical over terrorism at the mention of 9-11, it doesn't matter. It's still hysterical.
And so is Charles Krauthammer's Washington Post column.
For my part, I think a robust government response to terrorism is appropriate, as long as it safeguards individual liberties and doesn't cause negative repercussions for non-terrorists.
And I also think a certain level of gun control is also appropriate.
Let's face it, guns don't have the same use they did when the 2nd Amendment was written. Unlike during colonization and our
Manifest Destiny period, we're not living in a frontier land where every man has a six gun on his hip and every woman a shotgun across her lap. Back then, the Indians and road agents and unsettled wilderness made owning and using a gun not only practical, but neccesary.
Nowadays we live in densely populated cities, with no raiding Indians, with police to control the road agents. Different circumstances require different rules.
Guns serve only a few purposes today, and its possible to live one's whole life without ever firing one.
They are for the sportsman, the guy who gets a hard on when he gets a bullseye from 1000 yards, the good ole boys yelling "Pull!" on the backporch. To the sportsman, the gun is basically a toy, something to play with and occupy your time, a hobby, an art. To me, this is perhaps the best use of guns, because even though many rounds may be fired, no blood is spilled.
Then there is the hunter, who is like the sportsman, but with blood. I have no problem with these guys either. I mean, there are good ways to do it, and there's the Dick Cheney way, but that's another post entirely, and however you feel about killing innocent animals for food and sport, you must admit that there was a time, not too long ago really, that people subsisted in this country, either partially or in full, on hunting. It's in our bones, and it's a skill that we as a species shouldn't lose. (You never know, civilization could crumble and we'd have to go back to being hunter-gatherers. It's happened before.)
And then there's self protection, which is perhaps the flimsiest rationale for access to guns that I support. When it comes to self protection, I'd take a phone on a hotline to 911 over a gun during a burgulary anyday. It's not a matter of courage or intestinal fortitude. It's a matter of firepower.
Who's got more firepower? The .22 in my hand? Or the police with their radios and training and swat teams?
And what do I need a semi-automatic 15 in the clip, one in the chamber 9mm for? In case zombies attack or my neighborhood is overrun by Iraqi insurgents?
It sure isn't going to protect me from drive-bys.
And let's just play out Krauthammer's "armed household burglary" scenario. Say you manage to get your gun out of its locked child proof case high in the back of the closet in time to shoot the armed burglar making off with your TV. (He must have three arms...) When the cops roll up and shine their lights in your house, they're going to see you, standing over a dead man with the gun still smoking.
You won't hear, "Good job, bud!" But you might hear, "Put down the gun." That is, if you don't hear the gun shots that will kill you first.
The successful use of guns in self defense is rare; crimes committed with easily-acquired guns are not.
