The Gun Conversation After Virginia Tech

We've now had almost a week to reflect on the situation in Virginia last week. One of those conversations that's been big has been talking about whether there's enough gun control, whether it should be tighter, or, oddly enough, whether it's the restrictions that caused it.

Ted Nugent, whom we've talked about before, was asked about it by CNN. He said that if every student on that campus had been allowed to carry a gun that there's no way this guy would have been able to kill 32 people. He then went on to write an editorial, saying pretty much the same thing, and bringing up some other incidences where people were able to get their hands on their guns and stop further tragedies from occurring.

Initially, the argument started sounding pretty good, but that was still pretty close to the day of the event. As time has gone by, and we've learned a bit more about this guy, what's crystallized in my mind is that this type of thinking was absolutely incorrect.

There's two things here. One, if the laws had been followed properly, this guy wouldn't have been able to get his guns because, by law, his psychiatric record should have been a part of the police database that gets searched in that week that has to pass before someone can legally own a gun in Virginia, or almost anywhere else.

Two, this guy has proven to be a psychopath. The thinking has to be that, if everyone had guns, and he decided he wanted to kill people, he would have just escalated to the next thing, which is bombs and the like.

The idea that having more guns makes everything safer is idyllic, but incorrect. You think the people in Iraq are feeling safer with all the U.S. guns that are prevalent over there now? Does anyone here really think that, if this guy really had it in him to kill and kill big, that he wouldn't have just strapped a big bomb around himself, walked into the middle of a classroom, and detonated that sucker, especially since it seems he had the intention all along of taking himself out at the same time?

The point of gun control was to make sure that those who owned guns owned them legally. Hinckley and Chapman were able to legally buy their guns to shoot Lennon and Reagan. Could they have gotten them anyway? Probably. But the point is that there were lots of other guns around, at least for Reagan, and he got shot, along with others, anyway.

Having a gun won't protect you unless it's your job to be watching everyone and you have your gun at the ready. If you don't see it coming, all you're doing is providing some free ammunition to someone else who might have the time and the wherewithal to stop, pick it up, and use it on someone else.