This might sound blithely ahuman. But from a macro point of view, there are a lot more crimes that are averted due to gun ownership than are commited because of it. The issue is very much in the nature of the problem.
When things go wrong they make news. When they are going right, they are seldom newsworthy.
How often do we hear of a person preventing a burglary, a rape, a kidnapping with the power accorded to him by a gun?? But when once in 365 days, an incident like Virginia takes place, it makes big news.
Even if we ban guns, criminals will still get them. Look at the situation in India or Latin America - countries where gun ownership is restricted. People with mal-intent still get their hands on guns. The cost of a fool-proof method to control and monitor gun ownership is impossibly high and the endeavor might even be foolishly impossible.
The question is should we equip our people with the tools to protect themselves or not? The positives of doing this far outweigh the negatives of a stray incident like Virginia Tech.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
i dont agree with u there my friend.
a gun is a mere projectile launching tool - much like a hammer. the top-level question is - what do u intend to do with it?
a competent indian marketing guru says (and i quote her): "when you have a hammer in ur hand, everything looks like a nail!" - this is equally true for guns.
how would one explain "road rage" incidents in places like LA or Florida, where people have been known to jump out of their cars and shoot at another driver, because he/she cut him/her off at the last traffic intersection?
when u need to equip an individual for his/her own protection (which is what the 1st amendment allows in USA), why should it not make it stricter via gun-control laws?
by personal experience i can say, its tougher applying for a US tourist visa and then arriving in USA, than getting my hands on a gun (legally). go figure!
Just to establish the premise of this discussion, my point is that any control takes guns out of the 'good guy's' hands. The 'bad guy' will still get it as has been shown in cases of control for anything - guns, drugs or prostitution.
I don't know what kind of control you have in mind and what this control would achieve.
A program to reduce the rate of crime in the country by addressing route causes such as lack of education, poor income, lack of moral values might give better results.
premise noted.
i don't think any criminal element buys guns from the local ammo shop/dealer. however the deranged elements & those who perpetrated Columbine High and the mad-man of VT, did so. all those lives could have possibly been saved had the controls been in place to begin with.
regards eliminating the root cause - education can be no guarantee of a sensible behavior. impressionable school going minds, need a stronger social fabric and family network to ensure a balanced upbringing.
my 2 cents on "improving the world" :-)
People Kill People, Gun doesn't.
But, without easy access to gun(s), it makes a murderer with one less option to kill. A man with machete in hand will kill a lot less people compared to the one with gun.
Since you're in Singapore, it is a fine example. So it is best to have no gun can still get it, but in a very difficult way(s).
Macro perspective: IT is all about business (Money), the arm industry. Just like oil, the world can have little dependent on it but chose to depend on it because it is what top guys are comfortable with in making quick bucks. Switching to other alternative means killing existing one (comfort).
disagree.
Virginia Tech was not a stray event. it was one of many gun violences in school.
gun control in the US would make the cost of owning a gun higher for everyone thus making access to guns harder for a set of people who would misuse it. the lives saved by this far exceed lives saved by providing free access.
the situation is clearly different from India and Latin America in that it is harder to break the law in the US than in those regions.
Post a Comment