Another Millière article, from Sur Le Ring, dated April 18:

Reflections on the Bloodbath in Blacksburg

The terrible slaughter that recently occurred at a university in Virginia caused a predictable reaction in France. On all TV channels, there are inquiries into the “violence” created by American society, into the ease with which one can obtain weapons in the United States, and into the “all-powerful gun lobby.” It’s the same thing in the print media. With a delicate, often self-characterizing hypocrisy, Le Monde, in an unsigned editorial, stresses that it would be “unjust and false” to dwell on an image of America given by “outbursts of murderous insanity to which isolated individuals yield,” but immediately adds that the “acts of this nature are elsewhere rare, whereas they come to frequently disturb the American dream.” A little earlier in the text, youth “Made in USA” finds itself described as “subject to the double tyranny of abundance and competition”; not everyone is lucky enough to live in poverty or a planned society, of course. Who could say the opposite, in a country where the majority thinks that poverty is a virtue and wealth is a vice, and where one continues to be certain that the State must take care of everything? Only people like me, I know, one of those horrible adherents of individual liberty who should have left French soil by now.

Not having yet departed, I will say, for all those who no longer support ambient conformity with its odors of chloroform, I will tell you how I see it, in light of the circumstances.

1. For many years, American society has been inclined to be less violent than European societies. There are more deaths by firearm in the United States than in Europe, but many of these dead fall to police bullets after having behaved in a reprehensible manner. The number of burglaries, violent robberies, and rapes is statistically less than in a number of European countries. There are many reasons for this: first, a “zero-tolerance” policy inaugurated in New York when Rudy Giuliani was mayor of that city. This policy bore fruit and has spread, like a drop of oil on water. Then there is the use of deterrent sentences that puts criminals in jail and leaves few opportunities for recidivism. Today, the United States is a society where there is more liberty than in a number of European countries for those who have committed no crimes or misdemeanors, but also less liberty than in a number of European countries for those who have committed such acts. As I belong to the former category and not the latter, it’s a balanced state that I find agreeable. I don’t doubt that it doesn’t sit well at all with those that consider it to be sheer chance and an absolute misfortune if a serial rapist commits another offense once, according to European-style rules of generosity, he is given the opportunity to do so.

2. The right to carry firearms in the United States essentially doesn’t create any more crime, but permits, on the contrary, potential victims to defend themselves and play a deterrent role. The predominant reasoning in the United States is that it is not the weapon that kills, but the person using it. Individual responsibility is the basis of everything. Acts such as the one that has just occurred in Virginia have failed to occur a number of times, as in nearly each such instance, the deadly trap could not be sprung because someone stopped the murderer. The cases where there is nobody to stop the murderer are those where gun control politics place the murderer in a position to be the only person holding a gun. Such was the situation at Columbine eight years ago. Such is the situation again today, in Blacksburg. The president of the university where the slaughter took place was pleased last September that he had strictly banned the possession of firearms on campus. I don’t think that he is pleased today that the one person that killed 33 others before committing suicide had a monopoly on firearms during those long minutes, on that sad day in April. Le Monde, in the above stated editorial, notes with alarm that “voices have been raised to deplore the fact that that professors and students are not allowed to be armed, because one among them could have neutralized the killer.” Me, I deplore it also. “Politically correct” discourse and its consequences have once again served as accomplices to murder. The right to bear arms is not part of the American Constitution, as I’ve heard it said here and there. It is part of the American Bill of Rights, which is a statement of rights. To strike at the Bill of Rights in the United States is the symbolic equivalent of striking at the French Tablets of the Law. It won’t succeed, because the United States is still a country of liberty, where it is believed that the monopoly on weapons must not be left to the State and to the criminals. The lobbies of the left that oppose the carrying of arms won’t meet with any greater success this time than they did at the time of Columbine. One will essentially reason, in the United States, in terms of individual responsibility and security. And it will be very well that way. The security on the campus of the Virginia university where this bloodbath took place should be reconsidered deeply. One should also understand, more broadly, that the “politically correct” can kill and will kill again if speeches opposed to individual responsibility and forgetful of the fact that security is a fundamental guarantee of liberty continue to be made.

3. The “acts of this nature” occur elsewhere besides the United States. In many broadcast reports that summarized the slaughters that have taken place in recent years, I could see two precedents recalled, and two only: Columbine and an incident in Texas in 1966. To flesh out the evidence, a massacre that occurred in Canada a few years ago was grafted onto these American events (Canada, you know: the country where hardly anyone has a weapon and where it is the custom to be completely at peace, as Michael Moore noted in Bowling for Columbine), along with another that took place not long ago in Germany and, finally, the bloodbath in Nanterre. Nanterre is not, to my knowledge, a city in the United States, nor is Germany one of the United States. An abominable crime must be viewed as an abominable crime. A fault in the security of a school establishment must be viewed as a fault in the security of the scholastic institution. The ravages of “political correctness” must be viewed for what they are. My thoughts and my sorrow are with the innocent victims; I hold nothing back and have no ulterior motives. My anger is directed toward all those that are going to try to exploit this horrible tragedy in an attempt to advance their hatred of liberty and responsibility.