More guns are not the answer
Editorial
Issue date: 4/26/07 Section: Opinion
Originally published: 4/25/07 at 10:57 PM PSTLast update: 4/25/07 at 10:56 PM PST
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Last week we saw the deadliest school massacre in U.S. history. It shook the nation and particularly hit home with those of us who spend the majority of our lives on a college campus. As we move forward, the discussion on how to prevent this kind of tragedy has continued to spin off in various, sometimes terrifying directions.
The suggestion that armed Virginia Tech students could have cut Cho Seung-Hui's shooting rampage short is not only irresponsible, but troubling.
Our nation has a habit of answering complicated social problems with muscle, rather than brain.
Rather than identifying the root problems and working on structural ways to ameliorate a serious issue, the impulsive desire to arm our flight stewards, bus drivers, teachers and now students seems too easy to resist.
The result: In the name of greater security, we have created our own domestic arms race.
Imagine a gunman walking into a room with 30-plus students who are all "packing." He opens fire, using a semi-automatic weapon. Those who haven't yet been shot by the killer take aim with their own weapons, shooting him, if they are lucky, but possibly missing and striking a fellow student accidentally. Perhaps their weapons make them more obvious targets for the practiced gunman. Even if the shoot-out results in a fortunate shot finding the gunman and taking him down, a bloodbath will have ensued.
Now imagine an individual with a history of mental illness who has been forced by his state into treatment attempting to purchase a semi-automatic gun at his local gun shop. After running this person's identification information through a computer, the clerk learns this person is not allowed to purchase the gun. The individual is denied access to any guns the store may offer. Even if that person is later able to obtain a gun through illegal means, at least we wouldn't willingly be handing a potentially dangerous person a semi-automatic weapon.
More guns are not the solution. Stronger means of gun control, combined with better campus security and a focus on the psychological needs of students is.
The suggestion that armed Virginia Tech students could have cut Cho Seung-Hui's shooting rampage short is not only irresponsible, but troubling.
Our nation has a habit of answering complicated social problems with muscle, rather than brain.
Rather than identifying the root problems and working on structural ways to ameliorate a serious issue, the impulsive desire to arm our flight stewards, bus drivers, teachers and now students seems too easy to resist.
The result: In the name of greater security, we have created our own domestic arms race.
Imagine a gunman walking into a room with 30-plus students who are all "packing." He opens fire, using a semi-automatic weapon. Those who haven't yet been shot by the killer take aim with their own weapons, shooting him, if they are lucky, but possibly missing and striking a fellow student accidentally. Perhaps their weapons make them more obvious targets for the practiced gunman. Even if the shoot-out results in a fortunate shot finding the gunman and taking him down, a bloodbath will have ensued.
Now imagine an individual with a history of mental illness who has been forced by his state into treatment attempting to purchase a semi-automatic gun at his local gun shop. After running this person's identification information through a computer, the clerk learns this person is not allowed to purchase the gun. The individual is denied access to any guns the store may offer. Even if that person is later able to obtain a gun through illegal means, at least we wouldn't willingly be handing a potentially dangerous person a semi-automatic weapon.
More guns are not the solution. Stronger means of gun control, combined with better campus security and a focus on the psychological needs of students is.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 6
Jack Burton
posted 4/26/07 @ 7:39 AM PST
I'm glad that this editorial gives an opportunity to clear up a canard that gun control enthusiasts continue to write about.
"Assault rifles" are being demonized by many politicians, media-types, and other anti-gun folk who actually have no idea what it is they are demonizing. (Continued…)
Chris Smith
posted 4/26/07 @ 8:07 AM PST
The editorial overlooks the fact that in the 40 or so states that have enacted shall-issue concealed weapons permits, the kind of "blood bath" due to multiple, untrained people shooting back has never occurred. (Continued…)
Dave Blackmon
posted 4/26/07 @ 1:14 PM PST
What does an AK-47 have to do with hunting moose or the Virginia Tech shooting? Why do you find it necessary to exaggerate a scenario of armed students defending themselves? Why does anybody have to rely on the government for protection of a domestic nature?
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with recreational shooting or hunting. (Continued…)
Jesse Svejcar
posted 4/26/07 @ 1:25 PM PST
First of all, are you even serious about your scenario of a bloodbath ensuing if students had been armed in the classroom? You honestly beleive that it would have been WORSE if they could have killed the shooter instead of letting him kill them one by one while they were helpless?
Ridiculous, not even convincing to those who want to beleive it. (Continued…)
Dennis Miller
posted 4/28/07 @ 6:20 PM PST
After reading this editorial, I am starting to believe that
liberalism really is a mental disorder. It is completely irrational to believe that by making yourself more helpless that somehow you will be safer. (Continued…)
Baird Tarr
posted 4/28/07 @ 8:26 PM PST
Virginia Tech's charter prohibits CCW permit holders from carrying firearms on campus or face expulsion. That seems like a gun control tactic that failed utterly and allowed thirty two members of the university to be executed by a disturbed murderer. (Continued…)
Post a Comment