I read an article yesterday about a recent spate of violence at schools in China. In the latest attack, on Friday, a farmer attacked children at a kindergarten with a hammer before setting himself on fire.
This story is horrific, as were the other two recent attacks, which took place with assailants with knives. It’s awful and scary when unhinged people (the MSNBC article says the attacks “have been blamed on people with personal grudges or suffering from mental illness”) seemingly randomly turn violent.
I was struck, though, with the contrast between the recent attacks in Chinese schools and the kind of attacks that happen here, which usually involve guns. Obviously, there are people who will hurt other people with whatever implements they can find. But also obviously, it’s a lot easier to inflict damage with a gun than with a knife or a hammer, and a madman with a gun is by far the scarier scenario.
It happens that China’s gun laws are among the world’s toughest. Since 1996, China has had a ban on “the private manufacture, sale, transport, possession, import or export of bullets and guns, including replicas,” according to the WSJ. As that article makes clear, there are still issues with gun violence in China, but as one would expect, the rate is lower than that of many other countries.
I’m not an expert by any means on gun policy, and I recognize that the issue is complicated here in the US, where any change in policy has to take into account the multitude of guns already in possession, among other things. And yet, this is one issue where I just really don’t understand the other side’s perspective. It doesn’t make me feel safer to know that people can now carry guns into national parks. It wouldn’t make me feel safer if DC residents were allowed to carry guns in public. I’d be interested to hear a calm, sane, logical argument to the contrary, if there is one. What is the rationale for wanting to loosen current gun restrictions? The non-“over my dead body” emotional appeal/scare tactic-rationale?
Recent Comments