Timothy McVeigh used fertiliser.
Now Seung-Hui, a 23 year old student, has used firearms to commit a heinous act of mass murder at his university, Virginia Tech. In each case the most pertinent question one can ask is Why?’ rather than How? The ‘why’ is an analysis of the reason the event occurred. The ‘how’ is a mere technicality. Whether the weapon was fertiliser or firearms, the person committing the act was, alone, responsible. Firearms did not kill 32 innocent people yesterday; Seung-Hui killed 32 innocent people using firearms. This is a monumental difference. Had firearms been unavailable, his motive for mass murder would have existed nevertheless. This is about what would cause someone like him to do something like this, not what weapon he used.
Yet the discourse on this has inevitably created new fuel for the arguments of the anti-gun lobby, some of the weakest arguments in contemporary political discourse. I’ve written extensively on the issue of guns (some of my articles on the subject are available on this blog within search category: Firearms). Over the past day since the V-Tech massacre, I’ve heard many of the same arguments so commonly used at times such as this, some of which are merely irrational, a few of which border on the deranged. I’d like to use this post to refute some of the central arguments surrounding Virginia Tech and firearms; then maybe we can get on with the real debate, which involves analysing the motive rather than berating the existence of the weapon.
1) Guns are designed to inflict harm, so should be banned.
As fellow Libertarian Reason blogger Stephen Graham asked, “Is inflicting harm intrinsically bad? It seems to me clear that there are obvious cases when inflicting harm is not bad at all - the most obvious being the infliction of harm in self-defence, or inflicting harm in the interests of justice (perhaps to over-throw an oppressive dictator), or inflicting harm through pest control (as would be the case for rural dwelling folks). Even if it is true that guns are built to inflict harm it still doesn’t follow that they should be banned.” Most of the guns I’m aware of are used more frequently for recreational purposes than to inflict harm of any kind, even in pest control. Shooting sports are an extremely popular activity here in the States, and handgun shooting is an Olympic sport.
2) America’s obsession with guns is responsible for this tragedy.
This is a tricky argument. It assumes that high levels of gun ownership are somehow responsible for causing violent crime. I responded to a comment on Will & Testament which said, “I’ve visited Northern Ireland recently and it is MUCH safer than Philadelphia, where I live.” His point was an attempt to connect the higher gun ownership in Philadelphia with his contention that there are higher levels of violent crime in that city as a result, compared with Northern Ireland where firearms are prohibited.
Firstly, it seems immediately apparent that Northern Ireland is a bad example for him to use to support his argument. Every gun that was responsible for every sectarian murder during the ‘Troubles’ was illegal, yet it didn’t stop those crimes. It seems curious to use Northern Ireland as an example of a safer society than Philly! (And I’m far from convinced that that’s been proven to be the case.) But assuming that his anecdotal ‘evidence’ is valid, and granting that, while on vacation, he was capable of assessing and comparing the annual crime figures of an entire city just by visiting, it is still extremely difficult to know how enacting more gun laws will remove the guns. Even anti-gun, left-wing nut Rosie O’Donnell today admitted the impossibility of such a task.
What makes anyone believe that removing the guns (which is impossible to do in any case, as should be clear from the British situation among others) will reduce violent crime? Removing access to certain weapons will only cause criminals intent on committing violent crimes to look for effective alternatives. (Moreover, it has the added effect of disarming the potential victims of violent crime leaving them defenseless in the process, a fact I dealt with in some of my earlier articles on firearms and the issuance of concealed weapons permits in the United States.)
In Bowling For Columbine, Michael Moore made a blistering attack upon the high level of gun ownership in America, linking it throughout his film to high rates of violent crime. Halfway through, he contradicted his entire thesis by introducing the evidence that there are other nations with high levels of gun ownership who do not suffer high levels of violent crime, like Canada and Switzerland. Despite introducing this evidence into his own film, Moore continued to make Bowling about firearms ownership rather than about the real motives and sources of violence. If that’s not an irrational, unbelievably ridiculous logical fallacy, I don’t know what is. His movie considers the premise, ‘Countries with high levels of gun ownership are violent places’ and finds it lacking. Yet he continues his tirade against gun ownership as though he hadn’t just gone and proved the argument deficient in the most basic logic.
The fallacy runs something like this (help me out Stephen?):
1) Countries with high levels of gun ownership are violent places.
2) Canada and Switzerland have high levels of gun ownership.
3) Canada and Switzerland are not violent places.
Thus, Premise (1) is disproved by the second two premises.
3) How awful that Americans love guns so much!
I responded to another comment earlier from a Northern Ireland citizen who expressed his sadness that, in a culture such as America, people feel the need to own guns for their protection. He said, “John, your arguments are interesting. I must admit I think that you’re probably right - there is no way that American gun culture can be changed. It’s a pity - if not a tragedy. But it’s very unfortunate - a kind group paranoia that leads to a community arms race.”
This kind of sentiment is normal and is to be expected. But Americans don’t see it that way. They don’t regard it as a “pity” at all, and there is a certain advantage to being able to understand it from a U.S. resident’s point of view, living in a nation where gun ownership is just commonplace and not a paranoid or fearful thing at all. If I could bring everyone reading this blog to my home in the American southwest and show you the practical, realistic optimism of average, everyday America, I believe your opinion on this and perhaps even your worldview to an extent would be changed by the experience. Mine was.
Set in the context of American culture, gun ownership is two things at one and the same time. Firstly, it is a precautionary measure, in much the same way that a fire extinguisher, burglary alarm or seatbelt are - options, in case of emergency. There is little paranoia or fear or shame in owning a burglary alarm; neither is there in owning a firearm for the purpose of protecting property and loved ones. Both items address the reality of emergencies: they aren’t expected, they’re prepared for. And the gun is secondly a recreational item for many Americans. Come here to California and you’ll be amazed by the number of residents who own boats, skis, motorbikes, quads, jetskis, huge motorhomes, Jeeps, kayaks - in huge quantity and at huge expense. ‘Work hard and play hard’ is the ethic here. Guns are just another recreational activity for millions of law-abiding, peaceful American families.
I agree with him that guns cannot be separated from American culture. But I’d discourage people from seeing that as an awful thing. Firearms are tools which can be used for good, bad or just for fun. It’s those who wish to use them for bad and their motives we should be concentrating on.
4) We should be outraged at gun stores that continue to promote themselves regardless of this tragedy.
An absolutely farcical piece appeared in today’s Guardian, under the headline ‘Virginia gun giveaway to go ahead despite massacre.’ One can already see the heads of many a British liberal shaking in disapproval after reading only the headline. The article starts out, “They are calling it the ‘Bloomberg Gun GiveAway’. On Thursday two gun shops in the state of Virginia will stage a prize draw. Anyone spending more than $100 in either Bob Moates’ stores or Old Dominion Guns and Tackle will be entered, and the first prize a free handgun or rifle worth $900.” It continues, “Despite yesterday’s tragic events at Virginia Tech, a clerk at Bob Moates said the draw would still go ahead. …. It was revealed today that the Virginia Tech killer, Cho Seung-Hui, had been carrying a 9mm Glock pistol and a 22mm Walther semi-automatic.”
The last sentence should betray how little Ed Pilkington, the reporter who wrote this masterpiece, is qualified to write about firearms. A little education may be in order. The term ‘calibre’ (UK) or ‘caliber’ (US) denotes the interior diameter of a gun barrel. Some pistol calibers are measured in millimetres, like the 9mm he mentions, but most are measured as points of an inch. What he’s trying to describe is a .22 cal pistol, and a very nice little pistol at that (the Walther P22). I’m familiar with both the guns, and they’re both reliable and great to shoot (though I think he may have overpaid on the Glock).
Now, some of you cringed when I described these pistols in positive terms after this tragedy. That’s exactly my point. Such a reaction is irrational in exactly the same way that Pilkington’s article is irrational. Firearm stores continuing to sell firearms and continuing to promote their businesses is not news, unless one is already predisposed against firearms in general before thinking about it. There’s a term for it, actually: hoplophobia. The product of hoplophobia is that one will blame the use of firearms rather than the motive for a killing, and therefore Pilkington’s story works. He knows that most of his readership is like him and will react emotionally against such a headline. But is that rational? The answer is no, it isn’t.
Had this massacre been conducted using fertiliser, would Pilkington be ‘reporting’ on the continued business activities of fertiliser dealers? Had it been conducted using a kitchen knife, chainsaw, nailgun, or large vehicle, would Pilkington’s article have appeared in today’s Guardian as it did? Of course not. And for those who suffer from hoplophobia, remember that acknowledging your problem is the first stage in healing. This link may help.
I’m pleased to see that, despite the inevitable politicisation of this unbelievable tragedy by those who had already decided to oppose guns, voices of reason are coming from many quarters also. Presidential candidate Arizona senator John McCain says that this changes nothing about Americans’ right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, and that no amount of gun law would have prevented the action of someone committed to the idea of murder. The New York Times, surprisingly, had an editorial questioning the shrill cries for gun control as a response to yesterday’s massacre.
Meanwhile, families and friends at Virginia Tech will be left in the wake of a media frenzy to pick up the pieces and move on. As grieving gives way to anger, they’ll be looking for answers, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they are persuaded by some handy liberals that guns are to blame. Emotion can sometimes be the enemy of reason. But good societies are built upon the principle that reason should prevail, despite the difficulty of the circumstances upon which it is called.
May reason prevail.
John Wright
13 responses so far ↓
1 Anonymous // Apr 17, 2007 at 8:30 pm
John, your logic is impeccable. But you’ll have a hard time persuading people who don’t want to be persuaded. GH
2 Indio // Apr 17, 2007 at 8:52 pm
People like you are the problem. If you don’t realize that guns are the problem then you are part of the problem.
3 S Quinney // Apr 18, 2007 at 10:00 am
You think Indio has a problem with saying the word problem too much?
This was an excellent article, if only the nuts would read it with an open mind. Some great arguments and builds upon the body of work already here on the subject at libertarian reason.
4 Anonymous // Apr 20, 2007 at 7:27 am
John
You are of course right on quite a number of points.
The present European need (it’s far from a liberal thing - conservatives are among the worst)to sneer at all things American is to be deplored and this story was immediately siezed on from that perspective.
Your logic (and that of the NRA) that guns don’t kill people, people do, is also impeccable. But it’s addressing the wrong point. When someone kills someone deliberately (by whatever means)it is wholly their responsibility and the relative ease of availability of particular weapons does not diminish their responsibility.
However, you frame the argument as follows: ‘Countries with high levels of gun ownership are violent places’. You then debunk this quite effectively. But this is a very convenient way (from your perspective) of framing the argument. I suggest that it is better framed as follows:
‘Countries with high levels of gun ownership are more violent places than they would be with lower levels of gun ownership’.
The point you fail to address is “ease”. Guns facilitate killing better than most things (it’s what they’re designed for). If Seung-Hui had not had access to guns, he may well have tried to carry out a similar atrocity. But it is difficult to think of other means of doing so that would have been quite as “effective” (from his perspective) and easy. If he had not had acess to guns, his desire to committ the atrocity may well have been stymied by the relative difficulty of either creating or wielding that weapon. At least, the casualty count would have been likely to be lower.
Having said all that, this is trying to put the genie back in the lamp territory. Whatever, those of us in favour of less availablity of guns may think, the point has been reached where, even if European style gun control laws were introduced in the US (highly unlikely), there are so many guns in circulation that it would make little or no difference.
The question that interests me, as someone who loves the US, is why is it such a (by my standards) relatively violent society?
Steve
Cardiff, Wales, UK
5 John Wright // Apr 20, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Steve- Your comment was insightful and thoughtful. That much is a rarity among those who wish to discuss this issue in particular; what we have instead is a lot of hyperbole, a lot of tense people and a lack of understanding the dynamics of the debate. I suppose at least part of that is to be expected on a subject that, like the abortion issue for example, deals with life and death. I’ve been quite busy contributing to some media and other blogs on the topic, and I’m quite surprised upon my return tonight that my own blog is so quiet about it! (Where is everyone? Where are the pitchforks and sentiments of hate? Where is my fellow LR blogger Stephen Graham?) Anyway, I appreciate the comment and thought it warranted a proper response.
You’re right to say that I don’t address the point of “ease” with which one can gain access to firearms; I presume you mean in the sense that worse things can happen when guns are available than when they’re not. Insofar as that affects my argument that America’s ‘gun culture’ is not responsible for this tragedy, you’re right; Hoi may not have been able to murder 32 people with such ease had he not had (relatively easy) access to firearms. But I think it’s worthwhile pointing out that such a concession doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that firearms should be banned.
Say, for example, we invent a method by which to load an arrow onto a bow automatically once the previous arrow has been fired from the bow. This would allow the competition of archery to move along at a greater pace and increase the enjoyment of the sport. Say, then, that Hui decides to murder as many people as possible at his university campus. Are the dynamics of this debate the same, given that scenario? All I’ve done, of course, is to re-invent the semiautomatic pistol, with a slightly different look and an old-fashioned projectile. In each case it’s a deadly weapon, and in each case it’s principal, original purpose was to inflict harm.
The point is that we can identify any number of weapons which may inflict mass-harm with ease: oil trucks, nailguns, chainsaws, bulldozers, homemade explosives, toxic substances, sharp objects. Surely the best action of a society is not to ban or curtail the use of all possible deadly weapons, but to be vigilant against those who would seek to use them in such a way? And the fact that firearms are used daily millions of times more often for legitimate purposes than for murder surely destroys the argument from ‘design’ in an attempt to ban them? Banning guns, of course, did nothing to prevent the Dunblane tragedy in Scotland.
You’re right, of course, that it’s impossible to put the genie back in the bottle (ie. remove guns from America, or even disinvent the gun, come to that). But I’m not so sure it would be that great a feat even if it were possible. America is a much more peaceful society than many of the pre-firearm societies (think ancient Greece, Aztecs, native Americans).
You asked a great question toward the end of your comment: “Why is it such a (by my standards) relatively violent society? This question has perplexed me for years.
Firstly, I don’t think it’s quite as violent sometimes as people think. The American media loves violent, dramatic stories, and they’re responsible for creating part of that image. Where I live in Arizona there are no murders, few burglaries, no beatings, no muggings, no rapes. There’s a little domestic abuse, some (nonviolent) drug use and a lot of drunk driving. I noted with interest that Bill Bryson, in his book ‘I’m a Stranger Here Myself’, upon returning to the States after living much of his life in England, relates his surprise at the low level of crime where he lives in New England.
Second, the United States is huge. I think we sometimes forget that. Three-hundred-MILLION people! With such an enormous population, it isn’t half surprising that there are daily news reports of violence somewhere in the nation.
And I truly believe that racial tensions are responsible for a lot of violence also. Nowhere have cultures, races and religions been mixed so hastily as in the great melting pot of the United States. It’s ironic: the fact that makes America so great is the fact that has the potential to make it so violent. Never before the existence of America were so many different groupings of people expected to live together, in peace, as equals. And I think we’re still seeing the sparks of resolving culture today, between Hispanics, Jews, Africans, Irish, Italians, Latinos, Asians, Europeans, Middle Easterners and more. Give those people so much personal liberty and freedom on top, and you have the potential for violence. Isn’t it surprising, in a way, that there isn’t more violence in America sometimes? Most people really just have a great time living out their lives in this country, which is what makes it such a great place to live.
6 Rosalita Paglia // Apr 22, 2007 at 6:26 pm
We’re here John just watching with interest!
7 Anonymous // Apr 23, 2007 at 6:30 am
“Surely the best action of a society is not to ban or curtail the use of all possible deadly weapons, but to be vigilant against those who would seek to use them in such a way?”
I guess my first question would be to ask how to align this with your other libertarian principles - assuming that up until he commits the act, the killer hasn’t harmed anyone else? (I’m aware in this case the guy had some minor ‘previous re: harrasment of girls).
And it’s already been hinted at but the whole fertilizer comments undermine an otherwise thought-provoking piece (which by the way advocates a view I’m instinctively against) - if he had been able to kill the first 2 victims, then return to his room and construct an elaborate bomb with the god-knows-how-much-fertilizer it would take to kill that many people, along with obtaining transportation and being able to cover it up, then you would have a point.
(Again, that’s not to undermine the rest of your argument - while I disagree with a lot of it I don’t have the time now and it isn’t the ridiculously reactionary view that unfortunately many on your ’side’ of the gun control debate are incapable of).
8 S Quinney // Apr 23, 2007 at 9:50 am
Anonymous- None of John’s arguments hang on fertilizer.
9 John Wright // Apr 23, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Quinney- True. And igniting fertiliser certainly isn’t rocket science.
But a good question was raised: how to align libertarian principles with vigilance against those who may crack. Of course that’s the $64,000 question, and there are no easy answers. I would hope that most Americans would have two concerns in such matters: (1) to honour the rights of individuals as best as possible, including the right to privacy, and (2) to protect the populace from aggressors who would do them harm. Sometimes harmonising the two concerns is a tricky business; think the Patriot Act, which is still widely contested across this country.
Cho Seung-Hui had been declared mentally ill by two psychiatrists and a court had noted that he was a danger to himself. Yet he was never committed to an institution. He had been in the system and had been found normal enough to leave the system. He probably qualifies as a borderline case in this regard. There was proof and court records to show that he had mental problems at least. He deserves, as does everyone with regard to their medical information, privacy.
But a university campus, like an employer, has the right to demand certain things from a student at the school. I would argue that if a student wishes to enroll in a university, it is not a breach of their privacy that the school ask for verification of their medical records before accepting them for the protection of other students. The subject still has the right to privacy (they don’t have to attend the school) and the university has the right to deny them enrollment should they fail to provide it.
I do consider rights as inviolable. But there are other measures that organisations can take to do their best to prevent tragedies like what happened last week at V-Tech… the above would be a start.
10 Anonymous // Apr 23, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I see some people still reluctant to accept that guns are merely a tool to be used for good or bad. Well Miss America 1944 proved them wrong the other day by shooting out the tires of some robbers who were at her house until the police came. They were both charged and the 80-some year old woman was hailed as a brave woman protecting her own life and property with a revolver. To those who say guns are only used for evil, fuck you. I side with grandma.
Larry
11 Anonymous // Aug 7, 2007 at 10:40 pm
John this is one of the best articles I have seen in response to the Virginia Tech shootings. Thanks, I’ll be sharing the link with some people I know.
12 Students protest firearm prohibition // Oct 26, 2007 at 4:46 pm
[…] When a school shooting happens, people wring their hands and wonder how tragedies, like the one at Virginia Tech, can be prevented. At the same time many of those people advocate the disarming of innocent, […]
13 Illinois campus shooting and gun control // Feb 15, 2008 at 11:56 am
[…] the worst shooting since Virginia Tech in 2007, 6 people are confirmed dead in a northern Illinois campus shooting at NIU yesterday: […]
Leave a Comment