Mass Killings, Guns, Stuff Like That
The inevitable finger-pointing has begun about Virginia Tech. Setting aside the futility of making sense of certain kinds of tragedies, I find it even more irritating that people have their axes to grind and are using this template to do it.

The wingnuts, as usual, are finding a way to make Cho a liberal democrat, which OF COURSE is why he killed everyone. Oh, and all those kids who were killed? They were a bunch of girly-men who were too stupid to carry concealed weapons to class every day, or, barring that, didn't organize a suicide charge waving desk chairs over their heads and so they should have died.

Then there are the folks who want to use this to enforce gun control. Here's the thing: at some point in the last five years Cho was deemed a threat to himself and others by a Virginia court. Normally that kind of diagnosis would preclude anyone from purchasing a gun through federal law. However, since the Virginia court didn't actually DO anything about Cho's apparent danger to himself and others, no record of him or his mental state was entered into the federal database and he was able to purchase weapons. (NOTE: I read this a few days ago and now can't find the link. If anyone knows the reference I'd appreciate having it).

I'm personally trying to visualize this scene:

JUDGE: Son, you're a mess. You are delusional, angry, and possibly violent.
CHO: (Presumably said nothing)
JUDGE: But we don't have any funding to do anything about it, and you probably won't actually hurt anyone else, so we'll call this one a mulligan.

So this sad, sick kid slipped throught the cracks and a lot of people died.

The point is that there was already a mechanism in place to prevent Cho from obtaining a weapon and it didn't work. So why is everyone suddenly talking about banning semiautomatic pistols?

I don't think it's really Cho; I just think that guns are deeply upsetting to any clear-thinking person. I'm pro-gun; I know the actual statistics, which suggest that it is an order of magnitude more lethal for a child to have a swimming pool at its house than a gun; I know that there is no correlation between gun ownership and actual violence; I feel very strongly that all weapons need to be contextualized in the society in which they are owned and operated...

...and the fricking things scare the crap out of me.

So I feel and appreciate that concern, but blaming the weapon here is really missing the point. Look, last year Scotland decided to ban SWORDS because so many gangs had them and were using them to slice each other up. Next it will be rocks, I'm quite sure.

Violence is a mind set and is contextual. Guns are an extraordinarily effective way of realizing that violence, and they ARE scary. But a lot of things are scary and useful at the same time. Airplanes. Cars. The military. Do we try to wipe out what we're afraid of? Because take it from me, there will ALWAYS be something to fear. So do we hide under the blankets, or do we stand up and deal with the problems in our own society?