Defence and Deterrence
The recent Virginia Tech massacre has thrown up the gun-rights issue in the US of A. Gun ownership is seen as a constitutional (known as "Second Amendment") right. I reckon there are many reasons why Bush cannot push for stricter gun control. Like my tutor in another module said, he is a Texan, after all. Like any good ol' fashioned cowboy, he ain't gonna give up his gun. Probably folks up in rural states feel the same. Gun culture runs deep in American folklore, with the John Waynes and Dirty Harrys.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (from Wiki)
Some of the arguments from gun rights activists are quite interesting; if guns were allowed in schools, and in particulary Va. Tech, the victims could have used them to stop the shooter, Cho. Wow. So, kill him before he kills you. Kill or be killed.
Ted Nugent, a rock guitarist writes on CNN.com: "Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims [of gun violence] make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us."
In the topic of Defence and Deterrence (which surfaces in Chapter 6), what if our students were to draw parallels between this sort of justification and the need for an armed force for a country? What if a student starts to advocate gun rights in Singapore? I think we have to make a differentiation, and make it clear that the security of a country, within a geographical space is very different from carrying guns to school. When individuals (in a personal basis) are allowed to carry weapons or take up arms, chances are a madman will crop up somewhere and start shooting people. However, there are probably many checks in place in an army to detect and eradicate potential madmen. But does this mean the Americans have got it wrong? I can detect some of us who may think, "The solution is so obvious! Why can't they just ban guns, like what we did?!" Even Aussie PM called for US to revisit the gun rights issue, in the wake of the massacre.
Then again, no system is perfect. I may be wrong. Please feel free to shoot your views here.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (from Wiki)
Some of the arguments from gun rights activists are quite interesting; if guns were allowed in schools, and in particulary Va. Tech, the victims could have used them to stop the shooter, Cho. Wow. So, kill him before he kills you. Kill or be killed.
Ted Nugent, a rock guitarist writes on CNN.com: "Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims [of gun violence] make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us."
In the topic of Defence and Deterrence (which surfaces in Chapter 6), what if our students were to draw parallels between this sort of justification and the need for an armed force for a country? What if a student starts to advocate gun rights in Singapore? I think we have to make a differentiation, and make it clear that the security of a country, within a geographical space is very different from carrying guns to school. When individuals (in a personal basis) are allowed to carry weapons or take up arms, chances are a madman will crop up somewhere and start shooting people. However, there are probably many checks in place in an army to detect and eradicate potential madmen. But does this mean the Americans have got it wrong? I can detect some of us who may think, "The solution is so obvious! Why can't they just ban guns, like what we did?!" Even Aussie PM called for US to revisit the gun rights issue, in the wake of the massacre.
Then again, no system is perfect. I may be wrong. Please feel free to shoot your views here.
I'd like to share on what I've read regarding the VT massacre- mostly from channelnewsasia, IHT, straits times – along with some of my thoughts.
Some of the anti-gun lobbyists wrote about the irony of guns protecting them. When Cho was shooting, the other students were helpless. Where was the protection? But the other side of the debate is, if other students had guns, would some of them (with angst and vendetta) have jumped over to Cho's side and teamed up to storm the whole school?
The danger of having an anti-gun campus or vicinity means that if someone manages to smuggle or bring in casually (depends on the security) a gun and decides to do some damage, it might probably take a longer time for the authorities to bring him down.
Banning guns is out, like Idris mentioned, because of the 2nd Ammendment. Another point is that if you can't totally ban and remove it from society, legalise it with firm control. Singapore did that using this reasoning with football gambling. But I guess Bush could have enforced stricter rules. In any case, however strict the rules could have been, if Cho had planned to do what he did, there was no way he could NOT have obtained weapons. By hook or by crook he would have gotten guns to carry out his plan.
Back to SS, we have to tell the students it’s not parallel! Different countries have different systems and different ways to rule and govern the citizens, and like Idris mentioned, none is perfect. We do not need guns and we should appreciate how safe Singapore is. We can also use this incident to teach students that we should not be vengeful and settle issues through violence. (hmm becoming more Civics and moral education rather than SS). There is importance in the ways we have stringent checks (in airports etc) and frequent drills and practices (fire drills, anti-hijack drills etc) so that everyone knows what to do in times of emergency.
Hmm… I need to learn how to link social issues back to the social studies syllabus and topic. =x
Posted by
Regent NE Team |
April 22, 2007 at 2:13 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
Posted by
SS in process |
April 22, 2007 at 7:29 PM
I agree with Herk that Cho would get his gun by hook or by crook even if there is tight regulation.
Herk suggests that Moral values should be taught here and again I agree:-)
Moral values are part of SS and let's not forget it (still remember we could have personal development orientation?)
Someone commented that one of the reasons why 33 people had died was because they did not work as a team and pin Cho down. Cho was only using a pistol (not sure if I got it right here) and not machine gun. It was possible to stop him since there is some 'time delay' between each shot. Everyone was just thinking that they would not be so unlucky to be shot and so Cho had the opportunity to kill so many.
I pondered on this particular comment and felt disturbed about it.
Anyone care to help??
ps. Hee,I removed the earlier post cos I did not include my name...scare people do not know this is Phey Phey:-p
Posted by
SS in process |
April 22, 2007 at 7:32 PM
There is no need to go into the technicalities of the weapon and how fast the reloading after each trigger was. Plus Cho had two different pistols, so that's even more dangerous.
The fact is that there was a man brandishing two weapons walking around campus. I've never read about the issue of failing to pin down Cho. I categorise these comments as those from 'armchair warriors'. C'mon man, at that moment of madness, people are dead, or feigning death, or jumping out of windows. Nobody is saying a word, much less contemplating a 'flanking operation' or something to take down Cho. Cho has weapons, and kills with nonchalance.
If there's room for debate and criticism, it's on the school for not taking sufficient action after they have gotten news of the first shooting 2 hours before. To talk about how students did not work as a team to pin down Cho is really uncalled for.
For this issue, I'd also like to add that we can teach students about the importance of ties between countries (ch 6). For e.g, Why did the South Korean president apologise over this incident? What are the repercussions on the 2million Koreans living in USA? Why did PM Lee send President Bush a message of condolence?
Posted by
Regent NE Team |
April 22, 2007 at 11:26 PM
hmm...i am trying to be devil's advocate here.
So what would you say about the people in the US plane who said to have brought down the terrorists before the plane hit the pentagon?
Posted by
SS in process |
April 25, 2007 at 4:16 PM