Granted, I’m not an associate professor at the University of Maryland, but I must say, these attempts to link the Virginia Tech shooting to problems within the Korean-American community make me quite uncomfortable.
Sphere: Related Content-
Sponsored Links
-
English Books on Korea (and CDs and DVDs, too)
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
-
Flickr Photos
-
Recent Comments
- ecorn on Tragic Death in Daegu
- Sonagi on Tragic Death in Daegu
- Piper on Tragic Death in Daegu
- Baek du boy on Spiking English Teacher Costs, Cheap Gyopo the ‘Next Best Thing,’ and Throw the Sex-Crazed Pot Smokers Out
- Baek du boy on Spiking English Teacher Costs, Cheap Gyopo the ‘Next Best Thing,’ and Throw the Sex-Crazed Pot Smokers Out
- ecorn on Spiking English Teacher Costs, Cheap Gyopo the ‘Next Best Thing,’ and Throw the Sex-Crazed Pot Smokers Out
- Inkevitch on Tragic Death in Daegu
- seoulmilk on US Cows Protest KORUS FTA
- Piper on Tragic Death in Daegu
- Piper on Tragic Death in Daegu
- dda on Spiking English Teacher Costs, Cheap Gyopo the ‘Next Best Thing,’ and Throw the Sex-Crazed Pot Smokers Out
- SomeguyinKorea on Spiking English Teacher Costs, Cheap Gyopo the ‘Next Best Thing,’ and Throw the Sex-Crazed Pot Smokers Out
- Pawi's conscience on So Much for the Fifth Column…
- Zen on Spiking English Teacher Costs, Cheap Gyopo the ‘Next Best Thing,’ and Throw the Sex-Crazed Pot Smokers Out
- Austin on Spiking English Teacher Costs, Cheap Gyopo the ‘Next Best Thing,’ and Throw the Sex-Crazed Pot Smokers Out
-
Most Popular Posts
- So, This is Probably Why English Teachers Shouldn't Post Photos of Themselves with Club Chicks
- Lee Pani Releases More Photos
- Candlelight Rallies are Back
- Tragic Death in Daegu
- Open Thread #49
- Cool Heads Prevail at the Chosun in US Beef Editorial
- Lee Pa-ni selected Korea's second Playboy model
- Open Thread #48
- KoAm Housewives Warn Motherland Against US Beef
- Koreans have a "beef" against Korean-Americans?
-
Archives
-
Meta
41 Comments
Well, as I’ve always maintained, to the extent that we’ll never know what concrete “non-cultural” factors went into the formation of Cho’s particular pathology, to bound off culture as worthy of concern is equally unproductive.
There where never be a “Cho cracked because of X” explanation. But his incident is a point around which to ask the relevant questions. And since the Korean American and Asian American community has been identifying and working to raise awareness about the particular mental health problesm of API youth especially in relation to cultural patterns and pressures, it strikes me as suspicious (and to the API community that has been highlighting this issue for years, nay decades now, potentially quite counterproductive) to conflate the making of a cultural argument with “racism” or some other illegitimate course of inquiry.
What is more useful here is to bound off the extent to which one can make claims about CHO specifically, but use his example to highlight the other big factors that lead to very real mental health problems that are related to culture-related pressures, especially as they have to do with academic achievement and role expectations within the family, especially for males.
Also useful here is to gauge the depth of one’s knowledge about and demonstrated commitment to the community in question here. Clearly, a news show on CNN talking about “crazy Asian kids” or something (if it had happened) would not be a productive way of bringing culture to the table, but constructive conversations within and around the community, amongst people with affective and concrete commitments to that community, are in order.
Now, personally, I don’t think it’s useful to say, “Cho did this because of family pressures” is useless and besides the point; but I like to talk about the fact that South Korea is the largest sender nation of foreign students to the US, academic and family pressures don’t end at the border or after the first generation, and suicide is the #1 killer of people below the age of 30 in South Korea. And similar patterns have been identified as problems within the Asian American community for years – my own experience with friends working at the Korean Community Center of the East Bay is a testament to this; the Korean American community has been talking about this for years – it’s somewhat short-sighted to suddenly declare this topic off-limits because people are afraid of what Cho’s act would come to “mean” for the community.
Rather than worry about how to simply SPIN it, I think those most concerned should be looking at defining useful ways to TALK about it and try to stick to them. Then we don’t let Cho kill the good work that has been going on around this subject for years, and the the chance to help more API youth caught between rocks and other hard places.
“Rather than worry about how to simply SPIN it, I think those most concerned should be looking at defining useful ways to TALK about it and try to stick to them. Then we don’t let Cho kill the good work that has been going on around this subject for years, and the the chance to help more API youth caught between rocks and other hard places.”
Yes, without a doubt.
One can spin it whichever way they want, it doesn’t change the fact that we will never know for sure what made him crack because he is dead. One thing is for sure, though, is that being an immigrant and the member of an ethnic minority can be difficult at times, even in the most accepting of societies. As you were saying, let’s hope this tragedy doesn’t make things any harder than it needs to be for the younger generation.
The article is sourced from an academic non-entity. This journalist and academic will not be making any impact what-so-ever.
Whatever the psychological implications are, is there any doubt that it was all too easy for him to purchase weapons designed for little else than killing?
one major problem i have with the korean mentality over this issue is how hard the korean media worked to ascribe the cause of li’l cho flippin’ out to american culture in general. li’l cho was a KOREAN NATIONAL. yet in the media, li’l cho was described as “한국계” rather than “한국인.” but when someone from third or fourth generation korean in uzbekistan of wherever makes a name for him/herself in the global spotlight, he/she is immediately a “자랑스러운 한국인.”
Oh, please. Your comment reads like it’s been copied straight from the expat book of elementary Koreanism, Hines Ward edition.
“Hanguk-gye” doesn’t exclude “hanguk-in” and almost neccesarily implies it. If Koreans make a note of Cho’s culturalization that wouldn’t be irrelevant and it doesn’t gainsay that Cho is Korean. Why else do you think we apologized for him? There is absolutely no inconsistency in this behavior.
ps: In “we apologized for him” above, I mean “we” consciously. I’m KA but I felt responsible or sorry in the same way that Koreans anywhere else may have, I’m sure. That’s just the way it is, nothing to correct or refute.
Anyway, about the article, Cho moved to America at the age of 8. His family is Christian; they were not disconnected from the Korean community. Maryland and VTech have lots of Asians. His parents provided for him; they weren’t terrible abusers or anything. All signs point to an average (Asian) American way of life, with nothing general within it, no culture-bound pressures or such, that any sociologist, quack, or wannabe could point to and use as a key to Cho’s behavior. Not that Kim Dae Young, the guy interviewed, is doing such. In fact, I find his speculations fair and obviating of the notion that Cho really was the result of KA or AA or Korean society and not just a result of Cho’s own thoughts and experiences - or all the irreducibly individual and fu*ked up components that made up Cho’s life.
sorry, i think i missed that class in elementary koreanism, hines ward edition.
of course 한국계 doesn’t exclude 한국인, but there is an extra kimchi flavor somewhere in there making a subtle distinction. but it is amusing to see people like hines ward and dennis kang, who happen to have a korean parent, being publicly lauded for their “koreanness,” even though they grew up outside korea and do not even have a korean passport like li’l cho. i’m not hating on them, number one they’ll kick my ass, and number two i’m a big fan of both of them. they’re like blade, the daywalker, having all the best qualities of an american/canadian/black/white, and the kimchiness of a korean.
and personally, i didn’t apoligize for li’l cho, nor do i plan to.
“In fact, I find his speculations fair and obviating of the notion that Cho really was the result of KA or AA or Korean society and not just a result of Cho’s own thoughts and experiences - or all the irreducibly individual and fu*ked up components that made up Cho’s life.”
Nevertheless, he should have been as normal as can be, which most Asian Americans are.
Correction:
“Nevertheless, he should have been as normal as can be, which, as anybody else, most Asian Americans are.”
@#1:
That would be appropriate only in the minds of the verbal and sociological jerkoffs, really. One can say that Cho is a sick individual and leave it at that — because in fact there’s only one Cho. I recall a piece of yours relating Cho to some other Korean nut. Huge fallacy there, especially considering that the lives of Cho and the other psy-cho were nothing alike. I saw nothing in your “highlights” there except for a plainly, misguided racist one.
#4, CactusMcHarris,
Right, there should be proper laws banning these dangerous killing machines on our planet so that the next time a Korean goes apeshit we ensure they express themselves with things NOT designed to kill people like paint thinner and a lighter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu_subway_fire
Am I missing something? The story linked to is 7 months old…
Re #12,
Hey Cap’n,
My point was that it was far too easy in Virginia for anyone, be he Korean or Inuit, to get a gun.
The guy was sick, plain and simple. The fact that he was Korean is of no importance at all. I absolutely do not believe Korean-Americans have anything to apologize about.
“The guy was sick, plain and simple. The fact that he was Korean is of no importance at all. I absolutely do not believe Korean-Americans have anything to apologize about.”
Exactly.
Hummm…. how about a little role playing:
Gun Store Owner: What can I do you for little Asian college student?
Cho Seung Hui: How about a Glock 9mm and a couple of hundred rounds of .22 and 9mm hollow point ammo?
GSO: Okay, let me see some ID. (Click click into a computer and a few beeps later).
Terminal into a National Database: “Cho Seung Hui” recent patient at the local funny farm. Gun ownership and ammo sale denied.
GSO: Sorry buddy, can’t see you the gun and ammo.
Obviously a dialogue that didn’t happen and won’t because the N.R.A won’t let it happen. Ah, the N.R.A, an organization that insists on believing that they are last line of defense against a breakdown of democracy in America. Citizens with enough firepower at home will force politicians to think twice about limiting our freedoms!
WangKon, I was hoping to find you (sorry to hijack, but the VT story’s way old):
What the hell did Abu Dhabi just buy? The only term I’ve found in the news is “equity units”. What are those? Who owned them before Abu Dhabi bought them? Did Citi’s board just create them by fiat? Aren’t Citi’s other shareholders mad about their own equity dilution? I’m confused. Send me a private email if you like. thanks!
My point is that your scope is provicially limited to guns, ignoring a vast danger posed to society.
What we REALLY need are restrictions on paint thinner, gasoline and fertilizer. Prior to the Daegu subway fire, or Oklahoma city bombing, there was no conversation there either, no cross-verification with funny farm records or anything… Now what would be wrong with that?
captbbq, how many Americans are murdered with guns each year? How do you think those numbers would compare to homicides committed with paint thinner, gasoline, and fertilizer? There is a very strong argument to be made for paint thinner, gasoline, fertilizer - and throw in chainsaws, axes, and baseball bats if you like - having been designed for purposes other than killing, and overall, not being ideal means with which to kill people. Not having the statistics in front of me, I would guess with some confidence that these devices/substances are rarely the weapon of choice for most killers.
# 19,
$7.5 billion in “equity units” and people are saying it’s essentially 4.9% of Citibank. What it really is is a loan by Abu Dhabi to Citibank that has about an 11% interest rate. If Citibank doesn’t pay the loan off by 2010 or 2012, then it converts to common stock. It sounds like the “equity units” will act as a preferred stock that converts to no more then 4.9% of common stock in 3 to 5 years. The exact details of the deal do not appear to be made public so I can’t give you more detail then that.
“A.D.I.A. will receive convertible stock in Citigroup, with an 11 percent yield, that must be converted into common stock at a price of $31.83 to $37.24 a share from March 2010 to September 2011. The investment is expected to close within the next several days.”
From the NYT so my gut thinking that it’s a preferred stock that’s convertible to common stock sounds right. Also, the maximum equity that Abu Dhabi can own is 4.9% so my gut also tells me that anything greater than or equal to 5% would require board approval.
I know what’s it’s going to BE in 2011. But what is it now? Is this a completely new financial life form? I can’t make heads or tails of the 1-pager, even something as fundamental as: is it debt or equity?
http://www.citigroup.com/citig.....71126j.pdf
All indications are that Cho suffered from advanced schizophrenia, which is a biological disease that, according to psychiatrist Elisa Ely in an op-ed in today’s IHT, is caued “by excessive stimulation of one part of the brain, dismally balanced by deficits in another.” It is NOT caused by environment, but is a physical disease. Attributing Cho’s actions to his being a Korean-American make as much sense as saying that the Elephant Man looked the way he did because he was English.
If there was any cultural component to Cho’s illness, it was perhaps his family’s failure to get him treatment, despite reports that his illness began to manifest as early as during his elementary school years *in Korea*. Had they done so, the highly likely result would have been his lifetime institutionalization in a heavily medicated state, since schizophrenia is notoriously difficult to treat and almost impossible to cure. But at least all the people he murdered would still be alive.
Had Cho stayed in Korea, he still would have had faulty brain-wiring that would make it impossible for him to function in society. Perhaps he would end up getting arrested for assault, or maybe he just would have become one of those people who harasses random strangers on the subway, like that twitchy guy who wanted me to get Hilary Clinton to intervene to protect his human rights. But as long as the military was smart enough to give him a mental health waiver and not hand him an F-16, he wouldn’t have been able to get his hand on an assault weapon and murder dozens of people at a single go.
number 20, stay on topic, we aren’t talking about total number of murders, if we were we may as well talk about total number of deaths and cars would overtake that. (Seoul is a perfect example of how an effective and SAFE public transportation system can be implemented to eliminate the needs for these roving death machines and save the planet while we are at it)
NO. the issue at hand here crazy people who want to kill other people out of some delusional rational and their access to the elements to do that. Guns are a good example, but we also need to look at bomb making material. Every 14 year old knows how to mix detergent and gasoline to make napalm, pipe bomb instructions are available online too. The only solution is to make everyones private medical history available publicly, or to appropriate private companies so that a program can cross reference pertinent purchases such as firearms but various combinations of nailes + pipe + explosive material or Gasoline + fertilizer, or even paint thinner + cigarette lighter can be automatically with a database and trigger appropriate police intervention to determine whether the person is a danger to society.
We’ll be so much safer, believe me its for the greater good.
I’m sorry to claw back to the top of the comment heap. Can someone explain the meaning of ‘API’ in #1 by the ‘Metropolitician’? Maybe I can’t fathom this three-letter acronym because his post is an example of ethnic and/or cultural and/or gender and/or age and/or geographic and/or linguistic and/or religious bias.
Linkd,
Send a message through my xanga. I don’t want to clog the place with unrelated comments.
# 24,
Couldn’t agree w/you more. The NRA’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is extreme and in my opinion, archaic.
@#25
I’ll take my chances with the asshole with a bag of cow shit or a bottle of paint thinner over the guy with two glocks in his hands. It’s true that these items pose dangers depending on who possesses them - and perhaps even regardless of who posesses them. But the real and pretty fucking obvious point is that a gun is specifically made and designed to be supremely effecient at being dangerous, and that this conceptual and practical distinction ought to be enough to entail a difference in the way it is sold or made available to the public. It’s a no-brainer, really. What are your thoughts on the sale of assault rifles… missles and nukes?
@#26,
I believe, API = Asian & Pacific Islander.
“If there was any cultural component to Cho’s illness, it was perhaps his family’s failure to get him treatment, despite reports that his illness began to manifest as early as during his elementary school years *in Korea*.”
Not quite true. See “MIDDLE SCHOOL YEARS” on page 34 of this report:
http://www.governor.virginia.g.....CHOpdf.pdf
#26: as explained in #29, “API” (in the context used) in fact means “Asian Pacific Islander”.
This acronym may have originated with (or at least have been formalized by) the US Census Bureau, and so is probably peculiar to the US (we love acronyms, as it’s part of our master plan to bedevil non-native learners of English — or at least its “American” dialect).
Bad show, to use an acronym without at least spelling it out the first time:
http://www.census.gov/populati.....e/api.html
“APA” is another acronym which could have many meanings, but if used in the context of this type of discussion it will mean “Asian Pacific American”. Looks like this one has also been “formalized” by Uncle Sam:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/asianintro1.html
For the purposes of filling out a 2000 US census form (I think they would have been required to do so) — Cho’s parents would have checked the ethnic origin box for themselves and their son as “API” (the acronym would have been thoroughly explained on the form). As legal resident aliens (citizens of the ROK), though, they would not have been considered “APA”.
24; I think what you mean is that the second amendment itself is archaic. Along with much of the Bill of rights (quartering troops in homes? WTF?) There are no more militias anymore, instead there is the national guard, a government controlled entity. That being said, the second ammendment is currently granting a right to the governmet, not the people, and there is no reason for the govenment to contitutionally grant itself the right to let its own soldiers (National Guard) have weapons, thats just sillyness, so we can get rid of it. Besides all martial power should firmly rest in government hands where it can be trusted.
Come to think of it, I doubt the forfathers ever envisioned how the corporate juggernaught would be able to control the media either. Just look at crap like faux news and its relatively aparent. Luckily we already have a responsible impartial news agency immune to this (PBS) and I think thats what they really meant when they say “press” in the first ammendment…
Correction that was a reply to 28, not 24…
#20 gvi:
1) “captbbq, how many Americans are murdered with guns each year?…”
“In 2004, 29,569 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 11,624 (39%) of those were murdered; 16,750 (57%) were suicides; 649 (2.2%) were accidents; and in 235 (.8%) the intent was unknown.”
http://www.bradycampaign.org/f....._facts.pdf
This jives with my general recollection of the approx order of magnitude for the annual figure of US murder rate by firearms, for the last couple of decades (10,000-15,000).
2) There are many possible frameworks to choose for comparison, depending upon where you stand in the geopolitical universe. I believe in objective accuracy, so here’s one:
“The total number of people killed in highway crashes in 2001 was 42,116, compared to 41,945 in 2000. An average of 114 people die each day in car crashes in the U.S…..
http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html
Another would be to compare the US murder statistics to those of total annual deaths in the prison camps of the DPRK. But I doubt if there are any reliable figures for those, so I haven’t bothered to look.
34, Paul H. Whats your point? like I said, take the cars away and make everyone ride a bus! All death is needless!
25,
You shouldn’t have to take your chance with any!!!! Society should be safe, like a rubber room, or a straight jacket. Because ANYONE could be nutty. Don’t forget about the bomb in the market place… theres terorists too.
I like the way you think! Guns can be used to coerce others at the threat of death, this power should only be etrusted to the non-public, that is the government:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i.....67&p=1
And you are right, certain things are just different. But don’t forget, bombs are specifically made and designed to be supremely effecient at being dangerous, and anyone and make one. We need to go further. What are your thoughts on making everyones private medical records public so that we can properly determine whether they are crazy or not before they buy a gun… or 1 ton of fertilizer… ?
This is a very valid concern. While nukes and missiles are safely illegal, simple cuirse missiles can be built for those crazy enough. You’ve heard of the guy who was building one in his garage in Autralia? There are remote cotrol model F-16s on the market these days that use small jet engines, and they are quite big. I would provide another link, but the antispam software woud block me. The only answer is tigher controls on society.
But this is all getting away form the point here, and that is, its too easy for crazy people to buy things that hurt people… and the only way to put a stop to it is tightly controlling people and keeping all their information in one giant database, so we can check if they are crazyor not. The real ID act goes a long way, but in conjuction with a database such as that it would be even better, becaue if every must show thier ID when they buy things red flags could be raised if they buy say 1 ton of fertilizer at on plan, and two hours later buy a ton of gasoline…. This same concept is used on commisaries in army bases to fight black marketing.
The UK has the right Idea:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/a.....fe-amnesty
…and what a bastion of safeness it is!
captbbq,
I’m amazed you’re still alive, for you seem to have a complete lack of basic probability analysis, as in:
“When event X happens, Y is usually the conclusion”
and…
“I can’t possibly worry about the occurrence of every event with probability greater than 0, since nearly every event has an occurrence probability greater than 0.”
Specifically, how do you decide whether to step out in front of a bus or not to avoid the remote possibility that a car is silently about to run you over on the sidewalk ?
Enough cryptic talk : guns are designed to kill people. The probability they will be put to something useful other than killing or seriously injuring another human is very low.
On the other hand, all of the other things you mentioned as killing devices : cars, gasoline, paint thinner, fertilizer, etc.,. have a very high probability of being economically productive and NOT causing the death or injury of another human being.
Surely, you’re not insane. Rather, you are transparently selective in your enforcement of basic probability analysis as a cover for having an emotional attachment to guns rather than a logical one.
However, please be my guest and prove me wrong.
Also, I’m spending this effort not just to counter what you are saying, but to counter what seems to be a very common falsity when making a case for guns : deliberate and unequal application of probability analysis for the specific intent of misleading others and rallying the base behind an emotionally charged argument.
So, I apologize if you’re feeling a bit flamed right now. It’s not just you I’m targeting.
He’s not insane, just being a little too elaborately sarcastic. The differences between national histories/outlooks/cultures/domestic politics account for the vastly different approaches to gun ownership law between the US and other “free world” countries (I see your server “flag” is Hong Kong so I’ll assume that’s where you are located and give you “constructive credit” for advocating at least a UK-type approach to individual gun ownership).
As an American, I don’t even own a personal weapon, my parents never owned one but nevertheless as a young teenager I took the initiative to get elementary gun safety training and target shooting with a small city police department free program; I then handled individual weapons routinely (and safely) while serving long-term in the US military.
I am adamant in insisting on my right under the US Constitution to own a personal firearm, if I decide I need one for personal protection; as you may know, the procedures for implementing this can vary greatly by state and/or local political jurisdiction here in the US, but for much of the country it’s relatively unrestricted (too much so in the Cho case, admittedly).
The UK and other countries of the British commonwealth have decided to take the approach you advocate, which is the polar opposite of the US one; that’s their prerogative, but the “hidden” truth is that this approach also has its downside in that it contributes to an inability to counteract an ever-increasing individual crime rate. Here’s an example:
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/739/26/
If you bother to read this linked column, and your response is to ask me if I would shoot somebody just for stealing the doorknob off my door — the answer is no. But if I lived in a location (and in an era) when this type of crime was becoming routine, I’d certainly insist on my right to be armed with a firearm when attempting to stop the thief — in case he didn’t just run away when confronted but instead decided to come at me with a club or a knife.
It’s a chicken and egg type of question; the inevitable downside of the US approach is that we in the US will have a comparatively high firearm murder, suicide, and accidental shooting death rate — as compared to other nations where personal firearm ownership is absolutely prohibited (PRC/HK?) or extremely (and increasingly) restricted (UK/Australia/Japan/ROK etc etc).
But I assume your real agenda here is to find fault with the US as a matter of personal and/or national pride, to counteract our tendency to find fault with the various more collectivist political systems of other nations as compared to our individualist one.
No matter how many rights and resources we cede to it, the state can’t be around 24/7 to “nanny” us; the ultimate guarantor of individual liberty (meaning the right to carry out life’s normal activities unmolested and in peace, not the right to do anything you feel like doing) is a self-reliant and vigilant citizenry able to protect itself.
Paul,
I don’t know for sure why my flag is that of Hong Kong, despite posting right now from Seocho-gu (Seoul) with HCN as my ISP. However, I can make a decent guess that some ISP in Hong Kong let expire, gave up, or swapped some IP subnets that HCN subsequently picked up. Hence, whatever software this site uses to determine poster origin still believes my IP address is registered in Hong Kong rather than Korea.
As it is, I’m an American male (hence my name - Miguk Namja) who has a similar history of guns as you : I’ve taken gun safety courses, earned a “Rifle Shooting” merit badge in the Boy Scouts when I was a wee lad, and have gone deer hunting several times.
As for my post and position on gun control vs. gun rights, I wanted to simply clean up a flawed argument style to make room for sensible debate. I’m not sure how you assumed I support a U.K.-style of deadly weapons control other than my mistaken flag.
As for doing a comparative analysis of crime in the U.S. versus Britain and then trying to correlate backwards to whether gun (and generally deadly weapon) control is a good idea or not, that’s a very difficult argument to make, not least of which because cultural factors are perhaps a more important determinent of violent crime rather than the ready availability of deadly weapons to either conduct crimes with or deter crimes.
In other words, I believe the violence and anti-social streak that is more prevalent in U.K. culture than in other cultures is independent of weaponry. However, the effect that such violence has on the death rate is likely highly related to the availability (or not) of deadly weapons. Cause and effect. Violence in the U.K. isn’t caused by guns in the macro sense nor can it be controlled by guns in the macro sense. However, the effect it has on society can be amplified by guns. Hence, strong gun and deadly weapon control in the U.K..
With that said, it’s difficult to look at VT shooting and not at least question how easy it is to obtain handguns in the U.S.. Does it really make sense for a developed society to allow such easy access to tools of death and maiming, when a very large percentage of the population is incapable of exercising good judgement and restraint all the time ?
I’ll take my chances against a crazy guy with a knife or baseball bat any day over a crazy guy with a handgun.
Why are you arguing with me? I’m on your side, and I now what best for you. First you need to reexamine the values behind what you want.
Guns are indeed designed to kill, and in being so, having a gun means having power, ultimate authority, over others. So a crazy person with a gun has the power to end your life, and you are scared because they may easily obtain one and exercise power over you. But keep in mind other things are designed to kill as well are knives and bombs, and what you would rather take your chances with is irrelevant, because in the absence of guns, that crazy person makes a bomb, or just as easily walks up behind others and shanks them, or fills a subway station with chlorine gas.
Basically I see what you want to do, but the only way to achieve it is more effective control. Control, control control. As long as you have individuals running around doing what they want, society just isn’t safe. Humanity loves nothing more than to kill others and make stuff to kill others. Guns should be
hard to obtainunobtainable, but thats only part of the solution. Eventually we will live in a society where no one ever has to die, and sadness will be a thing of the past.It shouldn’t be your job to worry, you should concentrate on having a happy safe life, and the government will take care of everything else.