Tragedy

This is a hypocritical posting.

Below, I will accuse people, in a round about way, of using the Tragedy of Virginia Tech to advance their own political agenda, and that they forget about the reality of the fact that it is a tragic event of epic epic proportions.

Then, that is what I will do (not talk about the tragedy, use it as a jumping off block, etc.)

I'll just say this: I know my friends at V-tech are safe, and a day after the fact, I am already completely besieged at my work by thoughts about the results of this event, and the things that come next. So please take that as a starting point.

Now: Working in close connection to the world of news, the fallout and discussion angles from the tragedy at Virginia Tech became clear within hours of learning about the event. My inbox was flooded with people pitching themselves as guest – About gun control, and how students could have protected themselves from this crazy man if they were packin’ heat.

Lets set aside for a moment the objections that I see as obvious to this line of thinking: Namely, that if an entire college the size of Virginia Tech were armed every day around campus, I would imagine that the constant state of “cold war” (everyone being afraid to use a gun, because others have them) would be subject to a series of violent hotspots. I know that in my college experience, I’m really glad that emotional outbursts at a drunken frat party couldn’t have involved hotheads with pistols. And what about the poor fellow who didn’t want a gun? Would he, like china in the 70’s in my cold war analogy, have to pack heat just to stay safe? (Right… I said I was setting that ASIDE)

What I was interested in was how fast this event became the subject of people agendas. The NRA was motivated and on this as a talking point in under six hours. And it wasn’t just one organization. I got six different people who were sitting around waiting for a tragedy to occur so they could pimp the importance of the second amendment, and advocate that every man, woman and child hold on to a weapon.

For me, this necessitates looking at why the 2^nd amendment is in the constitution. I think America breaks down into two types of people: the first amendmenters, who think that words and Ideas have the power to keep us “free” and the second amendmenters, who put their final faith in the power of violence to protect themselves. However, I think that people who really believe in the second amendment (and here I cite some old school Nelson County country mofo’s) dig the right to bear arms for the same reason that our founding fathers put it into the constitution: So that we could protect ourselves if push came to shove and the Government came to our houses in the night with the black masks on to oppress us and take away our rights. (In other words, when the first amendment breaks down, you got the second amendment to kick ass, right?)

Now, the first official statement from the Bush White house went something like this: “The shooting is a terrible tragedy. We pray for the families. We still support American’s right to own guns.” This is, of course, a rough paraphrase.

But here’s my question: Is Bush aware that the reason the 2^nd amendment exists (again, this is in my opinion) is to overthrow corrupt governments like his? Isn’t the whole reason for the Bill of Rights to keep those extra bits of power out of the hands of the Government? And, irony of his statements aside, how does this extend to the rights of students to defend themselves from other students?

I really don’t think that the 2^nd amendment has anything to do with us being able to defend ourselves from criminals. I just don’t think it works that way. In a society where anyone can walk into a store and come back with an assault weapon, or at the very least , something semi automatic, as this kid seams to have had, I don’t think there is any way to protect yourself. The fact of the matter is, even if those kids at Virginia Tech had been armed, the kid still would have gone crazy, and he still would have set out to hurt people. The machismo “I could have shot him first” response is the exact reason that I would never want to attend a college where everyone was armed.

A gun will always be an offensive weapon. It’s the great social equalizer. It means that no matter what happens, this kid would probably be able to kill someone, and he did it the way he did because guns were easy to get, and have somehow become an acceptable way to settle things in certain parts of our culture. It seems like an easy out to me, to say that Guns caused an incident like the tragedy on the Tech campus, but it seems like a MUCH bigger out to say that more guns could have prevented this situation.

I think we are going to keep hearing stories like the professor who thought Cho’s writing was disturbing enough to mention it to others. The lesson, as always, is that humanity could have been applied to a situation if someone had picked up on clues, and a tragedy might have been averted. But, probably not, because this kid might have just been truly crazy (like Timothy McVeigh is truly crazy. Like Osama Bin Laden is truly a sociopath) and he might have found a way to hurt people regardless.

And, lets face it. I have no idea what our founding fathers were thinking. They were some crazy bastards, and they fought duels for honor all the time. But I still think that the goal for the 2^nd amendment was not to protect yourself from some insane outlier. Those things are there so that we would have the same technology as the Government in case they came for us. Why else do you mandate something as legal in a culture in which (back in the day) everyone was armed to the teeth already? It was to protect against someone becoming a King.

Side Note, or "going back to that Aside from before": lets look at what life was like when everyone in America had a gun. There were still lawless places. Significantly more in fact. And the places where everyone has guns here (see: Cities, Inner) people are still getting killed on the regular. Might makes right, and if I know you have a gun, doesn’t that mean I just shoot you before you get a chance to get it out? I don’t think any of you (except maybe the afore mentioned Hard Core Nelson Boys) are ready for a day when the whim of the people willing to use the force behind a gun becomes the rule of law. I just don’t think you cultured sissy punks are ready to actually shoot someone before he shoots you over a traffic incident. I know for a fact that I’m not.

Now, if Bush was serious about the right to bear arms, and he wasn’t worried about the people making a play for his seat of power, he would give everyone a tank. THEN we would be safe.