Blasting The Myths

Blasting The Myths

Virginia Tech rampage exposes right to bear arms as unbearable

By: Rachel Marsden

NEW YORK -- When a Virginia Tech student went on a shooting rampage this week, killing himself and 32 others, it reignited the gun control debate. Here are some arguments that have floated around in the media, and my response:

This tragedy could have been avoided, had other students been armed. Let's take stressed out college students and toss in some firearms -- starting with the kids on a bender in the campus pub. Heck, even the White House Secret Service couldn't prevent one of their guns from misfiring this week. And we're supposed to trust college kids?

Realistically, the gunman will always have the benefit of foresight, and will have fired off a few rounds before any others can dig their piece out of their baggy jeans.

It's my Constitutional right to pack heat. The Second Amendment was meant to give citizens the right to bear arms against the government, back when Uncle Sam's toys were as lame as yours. But I doubt the founding fathers foresaw people using their "arms" as a substitute for the "finger" in a moment of road rage.

Rifles are fine, as many people live in rural areas inaccessible to police. In fact, if the Virginia Tech shooter had been carrying a rifle, he may have had difficulty trekking across campus between the first and second shootings. At least he would have raised suspicion during that post office pit stop to mail a package to NBC between shootings -- as in, "Hey kid, is that a rifle in your pants, or do you REALLY like the U.S. Postal Service?"

Handguns are sheer lunacy. The DC federal appeals court recently struck down Washington's handgun ban, underscoring that it's every citizen's true right to bear arms -- even ones that serve absolutely no utilitarian purpose. Why stop at handguns? If my weapon of choice is a nuclear bomb or a rocket launcher, why can't I keep some in my basement for the purpose of self-defence, just in case the neighbour decides to get uppity?

As a conservative, how can you favour of gun control? Most conservatives are against countries like Iran getting their hands on nuclear weapons. It's hypocritical to oppose the concept of mutually assured destruction -- but favour the right of Americans to shoot each other.

Far-leftists like former University of Colorado professor, Ward Churchill, often ask, as he did at a University of Toronto lecture earlier this year, why all countries can't have the bomb like America does. He sounds just like the conservatives who argue that everyone should have guns to even the playing field.

Hardly a paragon of sanity, the Virginia Tech shooter was still able to order one of his handguns online, through a gun store. The other, he bought in person, as easily as scoring a McMuffin at the McDonald's drive-thru. So Iran's President Ahmadinejad is too crazy to have nukes, but guys operating under a very thin veil of sanity, like the campus shooter, should be able to wander around in public with easy access to a couple of handguns?

The Hurricane Katrina aftermath illustrates why people should carry guns. Take a natural disaster, add two inept levels of liberal governance, and angry uncivilized people. Now add guns. Yeah, that's a good idea. Conservatives should cite the Katrina aftermath as a prime example of why liberals shouldn't even be in charge of a 7-Eleven -- not use it as an excuse to give every moron access to deadly weapons.

PUBLISHED: TORONTO SUN (April 23/07)