I wasn't going to comment on the massacre at Virginia Tech, but reading Missy Randall's blog shamed me into it.
There's no way to make sense out of what happened yesterday at Virginia Tech. It doesn't make sense.
There is a way to reduce the possibility that such things will recur.
No, I'm not talking about gun control. The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution preserves the right for every American to keep and bear arms.
I agree with the tragi-comic wisdom of comedian Chris Rock. We don't need gun control. We need bullet control. Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.
If bullets cost $5,000 dollars apiece and the gun man could only afford to beat people over the head with his pistols, a lot more people would still be alive today in Virginia.
3 comments:
I don't know that the 2nd Amendment has that pro-NRA meaning. The controlling phrase is about the need for a militia. If that individualistic gun ownership IS the constitutional meaning, I would support an amendment.
If the murderer had been armed with a knife, he could still have killed one, but not 32. If he had a compound bow, he might have killed more, but not 32 before being overpowered. Guns, especially modern guns, make killing far too easy. We should make murderers work for it.
Ok, even if it's in the constitution, does that mean it's a good idea? With all of the problems in this country, does it make sense to demand that everything remain as it is, that we do nothing to make weapons harder to come by? Violence is rampant in this country on a scale greater than in any other industrialized country, probably by a factor of 10. Is that because we are inherently more violent people? I don't think so. It's because we have access to more and deadlier weapons. And that is very sad.
Police say Cho shot 170 bullets.
At $10 a bullet, the cost would have been $1700.
At $100 a bullet, the cost would have been $17,000.
At $1000 a bullet, the cost would have been $170,000.
Instead the cost was around 30 cents apiece.
Post a Comment