fatman Find the clues!

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Guns Don't Kill People, Seung-Hui Cho Kills People

After the Columbine shootings, after obese, left-wing guys make films about Columbine shootings, you'd think that there'd be perhaps some tighter restrictions on purchasing weaponry. Nope. Not a blip on the radar. America still fervently grips onto its Second Amendment, the Right to Bear Arms, which was an amendment to the United States Constitution made as a direct result of the Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts some 221 years ago. It basically gives a man who has had to go through a psychiatric assessment due to his three (3) separate counts of stalking the rights to purchase a .22 caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol and a 9 mm Glock 19 as long as he has enough cash and a valid driver's license. There are probably pizza deals that come with free weaponry. Not every guy who has gone through a court-ordered outpatient treatment at a mental health facility has gone absolutely ballistic and mowed down 32 of his fellow students but in the case of Korean-born Seung-Hui Cho he took time away from his busy schedule to do just this.

Would taking away gun rights from the hoi polloi reduce the amount of these incidents taking place? Australia thought so, along with various other countries around the world. We had our own idiot who decided to open fire in a cafe full of people at a tourist spot which was a former prison colony (but then again what isn't a former prison colony in Australia?) and soon after the Government decided that guns should only be used for shooting people living in the Middle East. Or Germans.

The other side of the flip is the ludicrous notion of giving more people guns. Former U.S. Senator and actor Fred Thompson (you might have seen him on Law & Order or one of its many siblings) thinks that if we had MORE people carrying concealed firearms they could have replied to Seung-Hui Cho's killing spree with hot lead. Now, I'm all for people re-enacting scenes from The Wild Bunch, and perhaps one of Cho's classmates could have retaliated by blowing the killer's head off. But I don't know. Does anyone else see the potential flaws in this way of thinking (i.e. stray bullets?)

There were other victims out there that day. My deepest condolences go to the grieving families and loved ones of the victims but these are not the people I was thinking about. I'm thinking about the serial killers of the world here. I can imagine scores of homicidal maniacs, watching the shootings unfold on TV, being absolutely appalled by what was happening before them. These are dedicated guys who spent their teenage years gratifying themselves over animal corpses while other kids spent time kicking the football or going to movies, the guys who keep half-a-dozen cheerleader parts in the freezer, eating livers of their victims, slowly working their way up the F.B.I.'s Most Wanted List, proud in the knowledge that each murder was thematically linked to the last one, sending cops clues, riddles written in blood, etc. when this pissant show pony decides to steal their limelight, ruin their masterwork in one single day. How are they going to fulfil their life's purposes now?

Truly we live in the era of instant celebrities.

6 Comments:

Blogger rupert said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4:51 pm  
Blogger rupert said...

I realise the restriction of fire-arms is a necessary and positive approach to harm minimalization, as would also be the restriction of armed forces and war weapons - but nothing will be resolved until some kind of network of thought regarding the individuals needs within larger communities and attitudes of power/authority/nationalism/industry and what have you is addressed to prevent human beings wanting to do harm to others. Restricting guns is a start but it is a mere band-aid to a much more urgent problem.

Rupert

4:52 pm  
Blogger Fatman said...

Hey Rupert. I'd probably rather talk about c-ck cream rather than discuss gun laws. Its just that its such a serious topic that requires maturity, a lot of long, serious discussions about how its going to affect the human race not just in our generation but for future generations and if handled incorrectly it may cause irreparable harm to....but here I go talking about c-ck cream again.

We live in a violent world. It is much easier to pistol whip someone than it is to have an honest and open debate in order to move forwards. 'Lack of communication' is the albatross that hangs around the neck of humanity and if we can't talk about all the topics we MUST talk about (pollution, euthanasia, climate change, abortion, the death penalty, AIDS, poverty, etc) we will be forever cursed.

7:26 pm  
Anonymous Hamish said...

I think the prevailing U.S. opinion on gun control is, "you control your gun and I'll control mine." Some guy I used to work with had a bumper sticker that said "Charlton Heston is my President."

Also, we only get weaponry with pizza on Wednesdays, and only if you order at least two toppings. I usually went for pepperoni, extra cheese and a flamethrower.

8:19 pm  
Blogger Gorilla Bananas said...

"to prevent human beings wanting to do harm to others."

Nice to see utopian thinkers arriving at your blog, Fatman. Has there even been a human (or ape) who did not at some point in his life wish to do harm to another? These desires are too much a part of the survival instinct. Controlling and dissipating them is the best we can be hope for. Rupert should read your post about Cousin Jesse and Kitty.

5:23 pm  
Blogger Yawn said...

I can take a bus to the firearms emporium a few miles away and walk out with various assault rifles, throwing stars, maybe even Black Talon or hollowpoint bullets if I was well-enough connected. But I can't buy a simple switchblade because they're illegal. In some states even butterfly knives are illegal! You wanna explain that logic to me?

I guess I'll have to go pick one up from the Mexicans in the flea market. They don't let shit like laws and stuff get in the way of things like commerce!

8:28 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home