So How Insane is This

Shifter here.

Ok, so this has been on my mind ever since the Virginia Tech shootings and all the media that came out afterwards. First, the obligatory but true comment that what happened at Virginia Tech was a tragedy, and of course we should do everything we can to 1) make sure something like that is less likely to happen and 2) take care of those affected as best we can. And perhaps some of the things being done afterwards will achieve those goals. Nonetheless, espousing idiocy should not be seen as a good way to honor the dead or prevent future tragedy. Did you hear that, Mr. Bush? But I digress.

There is one thing about the aftermath of Virginia Tech that is just maddening to me. After this guy walks onto campus and kills lots and lots of people with guns there is a lobby, local and national, to allow more guns on campus. People are actually saying that schools should be required to allow students to carry concealed firearms. The argument, which is incredible, is that if more people were carrying guns on campus perhaps a shootout at the OK Corral would have occurred, killing the gunman before more innocents were killed. I have heard some speakers say that "at least former military personnel" should be allowed to carry guns, again so that they can play Wyatt Earp and save the day. Because, as we all know, former military personnel are superior to the rest of us and sure to use the guns to defend others.

So first, let me count the ways this is ridiculous. OK-Corral, lots of people shooting back and forth, nobody else gets hurt. Brilliant! Trained SWAT teams don't always do that well, but a freshman with a 9 millimeter, he'll do great! Next, I don't know if many of you remember college but there are a lot of people there with a lot of problems and a lot of stress and occasionally they get really mad or rambunctious or even (gasp) drunk. In college, typically, that leads to yelling, fist fights, vandalism, bad poetry, and minor legal problems. Now let's add a few guns to the mix, especially those guns that police are not allowed to prohibit (under the Brilliant rules being suggested), and see what happens. Crimes of passion, anyone? Stupid mistakes leading to death instead of bloody noses? Fortunately, former-military people never drink or do dumb things, so if we limit it to them well it's all going to be ok, right? Similarly brilliant. The argument is made that people should be "allowed to defend themselves." Nice, emotional, and probably very wrong. The odds are, more people will kill others wrongfully than will successfully defend themselves. I'm sure there's a statistic on that somewhere - like the gun-in-the-home for defense thing? So if your chance to defend yourself means, overall, that more people are likely to die then sorry, you shouldn't get that chance. Tanks give people a terrific chance to defend themselves, after all, and nobody has (yet) proposed that Virginia Tech students be allowed to drive them to class. But the year isn't over yet.

Now the fact that this whole thing is as nuts as it is has me wondering. Is this, perhaps, some kind of Machiavellian plot? Think about it - another huge shooting, tons of people killed, gun lobby has to be a bit nervous. Here we go again, they think. More anti-gun freaks going to claim that while people do kill people, "guns help" (to quote Eddie Izzard). So what do they do? They decide that the best way to deflect THAT debate is to start a new one! "It goes to show we need more guns!" they cry. And while all the sane people do double takes and try to figure out if they're hearing this right, they grin as they sidestep a potential Killer Issue. Now I know there is a certain "grass roots" feel to some of the pressures out there (see link) but when something this incredibly mindbogglingly stupid gets said on TV this much, you have to wonder a bit, don't you? Or am I being paranoid? Maybe a little wild-eyed? Even dangerous-looking? Good thing you're allowed to carry that gun…