Late last week, while I was at work, I heard a co-worker say, about the Virginia Tech shootings, “I think we do need to have the gun control argument again. This sort of thing doesn’t happen in countries where guns are outlawed.” Considering that I’ve learned that political debates should stay out of the workplace (people get angry, which is not good for a workplace environment), I opted to keep my mouth shut, though I told myself that I’d write a post about it later to get it out of my system.

Of course, as tends to happen, I discovered that the post had already been written, and been written better than I could have done, in several places. One of which is, of course, on the blog of Connie du Toit:

The person who is willing to murder someone has already crossed the line. The person wanting to murder someone is already planning to break the most critical of all laws: Murder. But somehow the criminal will think, “Ohhhhhhh, guns are illegal. Guess I can’t murder anyone then and I’ll have a V-8.”

Shall we make murder illegal again? Write it down twice (or three times) or write the law in gold ink, clicking our heels together three times while passing it, and then people will stop committing murder?

I really don’t understand how anyone can think that someone would go through the thought process that making the purchase of a gun illegal will stop someone from doing something already illegal (regardless of weapon choice) with a gun. It makes no sense at all.

…

Guns are illegal in Japan, yet the Mayor of Nagasaki was shot and killed yesterday, with a gun. Folks need to think that through. Guns were illegal, but somehow, someone got a gun. How’d that happen if guns were illegal? How’d that happen in an island country where people can’t own guns?

PEOPLE BREAK LAWS.

Let me say this again, just in case it isn’t really understood: No matter what laws you pass, no matter how many pounds of fairy dust you sprinkle on the earth, no matter how many pennies you throw in wishing wells, or offerings you make to the Gods, YOU CANNOT MAKE GUNS GO AWAY.

Guns are here to stay, just as there will always be clubs, knives, and swords.

Criminals do not obey the law. You’d think that was apparent in the use of the word “criminal” but some folks just don’t seem to allow that to sink in.

They’re C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S. Criminals break laws. Criminals will be able to get guns (or other weapons) no matter how many laws you pass. No matter how many hurdles you put in place to prevent law-abiding people from buying guns, or even the complete eradication of all laws which allow their possession (as in Japan), criminals will always be able to get a gun… or a knife… or gasoline to make a Molotov cocktail… or a kitchen knife… or a club… or a shovel.

The possession of a gun isn’t like the chemical compound in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. A hunk of forged metal in someone’s hand doesn’t turn an ordinary person into a lunatic. They were a lunatic BEFORE they had the gun in their hand.

As always, the whole post is worth reading (as is her Fax to her Congresspersons).

I really do understand why some people believe that the proper response to incidents like the Virginia Tech shooting is to ban guns (or, since it was, as I understand it, already illegal to have guns on campus, to ban them harder), but I think that ultimately, that desire is misguided. In the wild, predators don’t tend to go after the prey that will fight back if they have a choice. The best way to defend ourselves against criminals like Cho Seung-Hui is to give responsible, law-abiding citizens the means to fight back (if they so choose — I’m not advocating forcing guns on anyone who doesn’t want to use them), not to continue to strip them of those means.

Not only are video games responsible for warping the mind of Cho Seung-Hui, they made him a better marksman:

Virginia Tech mass murderer Cho Seung Hui honed his skill as a deadly marksman by playing violent video games.

According to Washington Post Staff Writer David Cho, several Korean youths who knew Cho Seung Hui from his high school days said he was a fan of violent video games, particularly a game called “Counterstrike,” a hugely popular online game in which players join terrorism or counterterrorism groups and try to shoot each other using all types of guns.

Emphasis mine.

Here are a couple of facts about me. First, I play violent video games. I loved Gears of War, which not only lets players “try to shoot each other using all types of guns”, it lets players attack each other with a “chainsaw bayonet”. Second, I have been known to shoot guns. I don’t do it regularly, but I grew up with them in the house, and I’ve spent time with both my dad and my friends firing weapons.

I am not a particularly violent or aggressive person. This is despite the fact that, throughout my life, I have spent time beating my friends up (and being beat up by my friends) in games like Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinct, not to mention the amount of time I’ve spent hunting and “killing” friends in Halo, Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, Gears of War, and dozens of similar games. Violent video games do not a killer make.

Another interesting fact of note: despite the fact that I have managed to kill my friends hundreds, if not thousands of times using virtual guns, I have a hard time shooting a target with a real gun. Similarly, I have a feeling that my dad, despite being a fairly good shot with a rifle, would have a bit of trouble translating that skill into shooting an Axis soldier in Call of Duty 3.

It is possible that Cho Seung-Hui was unbalanced and that his obsession with violent video games was a symptom of that, or even that it worsened it to some degree, but he was not some completely normal, sane, well-adjusted individual who was brainwashed into becoming a maniacal killer by Counterstrike. It is also not possible that he learned how to accurately shoot a firearm by playing a video game. The skills are so unrelated that you may as well say that I am qualified to be a doctor because I once played a few levels of Trauma Center: Under the Knife on my sister’s DS, or that kids who can document that they’ve played lots of Mario Kart shouldn’t have to take a driving test. After all, they’ve spent lots of time “honing their skills”, right?

Maybe Cho was mentally unbalanced. Maybe he had some neurological defect that caused this. Maybe he was just evil. I’ll repeat myself here: He was not a nice, well-adjusted individual who was brainwashed into becoming a maniacal killer by Counterstrike. Using this incident to attack video games is simply pathetic.

Now that it’s finally premiered, Fox is wasting no time in shifting Drive up to full gear. The two-hour premiere event on Sunday aired both The Starting Line (which I missed, but was thankfully able to watch online — I love the internet) and Partners. Monday night, in its regular timeslot, was a third episode, Let the Games Begin.

Now, here’s a disclaimer: I was anticipating this show with an eagerness that I usually reserve for new Spider-Man movies. Nathan Fillion in a starring role? Tim Minear as executive producer? Maybe I was anticipating it even more than a Spider-Man movie (after all, the new Spider-Man movie has a Goblin in it). If I had ended up not liking it, I would probably not tell anyone. I wouldn’t lie and say it was great, but I’d refuse to say bad things.

Fortunately, I did enjoy watching it. Though, given that, and the aforementioned fact that Tim Minear is the executive producer of the show — on Fox! — I won’t get my hopes up of seeing more than the already-purchased 12 episodes (and at least 3 of those, I don’t expect to see until the DVDs are released). And that’s all I’m going to say before cutting the spoilers.

More …

When I first heard about the Virginia Tech shooting, it was because a co-worker with whom I’m relatively friendly came into my office to talk about it. Someone she knew from church was at the college, and she was, quite understandably, worried (thankfully, he turned out to be okay).

After hearing about the shooting, I took a moment to pray for the safety of my friend’s friend, as well as for everyone touched by the shooting — including the shooter himself. As I said about the family and friends of Kevin Underwood, I fear that the people who loved the shooter yesterday will find themselves second-guessed and criticized by people who are desperate to find some way to explain this*.

Honestly, I think that it’s far too easy to place blame in these sorts of situations, to jump to the conclusion that someone must have been able to do something to save Jamie Bolin. We want to believe that Kevin’s monstrosity was always present, and it must have been obvious, but the people around him were either incapable or unwilling to see it and do something about it. We’d like to be able to think that people who would do this sort of thing are easily identifiable because the alternative, that sometimes, very, very dangerous people are able to blend in with the rest of us without arousing any serious suspicion from the people around him, is terrifying.

I don’t know a whole lot about this shooter at this point, other than his name. Still, I can’t imagine that there isn’t at least one person who knew him well enough to care about him, but who was (or will be) shocked to learn that he was the killer.

In hindsight, it’s altogether possible that this person (or these people — I’m going to stick with the singular for simplicity’s sake from now on, though) will look at what they knew and believe that they should’ve put the pieces together and realized what was going on. It’s likely that this person will blame themselves. That’s something that they’ll have to address and come to terms with themselves — it is not something that should be exacerbated by outsiders looking in who’re just desperate to find some way to explain this.

Ultimately, the shooter is to blame for his actions. His friends are not to blame. His family is not to blame. If they did something to directly encourage it, if they were so involved as to be considered accomplices, then they are to blame for their actions, but they are not to blame for the action of the shooter, who, from all accounts I’ve read, was acting alone.

* Incidentally, if you were worried that video games — which seem to have somehow escaped any blame in the media for the Underwood case — might also get off cleanly in this one, you can feel better now. Jack Thompson has it covered.

[EDIT: Second footnote deleted because I had removed the reference before actually posting and forgot to remove the footnote. I've never claimed to be perfect. ]

This just makes my desire for a roadtrip even more pronounced.