Let it first be said that reasonable people can disagree on gun control and, in general, people have the best of intentions, but differ on the means.
As far as numbers, it is important to point out that, although such mass murders are truly sickening, murders overall have been on the decline since the 1990s. This is despite a greater population and a greater number of guns. Assuming the source is correct, there is a gun for just about every man, woman and child in the United States, yet there are not 310 million murders or accidents.
This presents a paradox which is not easily understood or explained. On the one hand we have more people, more guns and less crime, yet mass killings seem to occur with alarming frequency.
Another thing to consider is the worst acts of murder committed in the U.S. were not committed with firearms at all. For example;
- September 11th attacks used planes hijacked with box cutters, killing nearly 3,000.
- Oklahoma City Federal Building was attacked with a truckload of explosives made from fertilizer, killing 168.
- Serial Killer Gary Ridgway killed at least 71 victims by strangulation. Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy used similar M.O.s
- The worst attack on a school was conducted using explosives, killing 45 (including the bomber) in 1927.
Even in societies which are known for being socially and economically stable have witnessed horrible mass killings, such as in Norway and Japan. Of course none of this is of any comfort to the families of the victims of any murder, despite the means and it is shocking to know that if someone really wants to murder, he will find the means.
So what do we do about it? Even if we assumed that there was no second amendment and guns could be banned tomorrow, would it work? We know from the prohibition of alcohol and drugs that black markets spring up all over the place. What practical means is there to remove 310 million firearms anyway?
On the other hand, we know that armed people do indeed defend themselves and others from mass killers and rioters. For example, there was Vice Principal Joel Myrick who stopped killer Luke Woodham with his .45. There was Jeanne Assam, a volunteer security guard at New Life Church in Colorado Springs who cut down spree killer Mathew Murray, which more than likely prevented many more deaths. And there are the Korean store owners during the 1992 L.A. riots who defended their lives and property.
Are these the exceptions to the rule? I'm not sure anyone can say because it is extremely difficult to report on murders that didn't happen because one of the good guys had a gun. However I don't think that the killings in Newtown/Sandy Hook Connecticut , Aurora, Colorado and so on occurring in so-called "gun-free zones" is a coincidence. After all, if the goal is to kill as many as possible, one looks for the most defenseless. In the case of Adam Lanza, he killed his mother at home then went to the school. If the reports are accurate, Lanza killed himself when the police arrived. In other words, he only stopped killing when others came to challenge him. A similar pattern existed for Virginia Tech killer, Seung-Hui Cho.
Considering these factors, I believe it makes sense for there to be armed personnel at public schools and to remove the imposed "gun-free zones". This seems shocking at first, and it might not prevent future violence, but it does give innocent people a fair chance, and while the killer is occupied with well-trained defenders, it gives more time for others to escape. This is not a perfect solution. There is no perfect solution, particularly when mental illness is not well understood. But, this is not an impractical solution either, and not as strange as one might first believe. For instance, when I was in 5th grade, my classmates and I were given D.A.R.E. training over the course of a few weeks, which included regular visits by a uniformed police officer. As she was on duty, she was armed. The notion went from shocking to routine in a matter of hours, and you had better believe that we were a well behaved class at those times. I believe there is no shortage of organizations who will provide very effective safety and accuracy training to school personnel.
The other side of the equation is much harder, and that is prevention. Preventing not only "crazies" from getting guns, but also from getting knives, cars and explosives. This means we all have to do our part to keep our guns and other potential weapons secure, and (this is the hard part) we must address the issue of those who are mentally disturbed. For I believe the root cause is the disturbed man's desire to kill, and not the means he chooses to do it. But I do not believe that disarming innocent people will prevent any future tragedies.
Suzanna Hupp's testimony illuminates the subject rather succinctly.
Murder in any capacity is a terrible thing. Perhaps the most terrible thing we humans know. But we still must be practical, and we still want to be free. I firmly believe that the reason that the U.S. has not had a Stalin or Hitler or Mao or faced an invasion since 1814 is because of our 2nd Amendment. Murderous psychotics have taken so much from us, it would be a mistake to allow them to take away our freedoms and right to self-defense as well.
Edit; Here is an extremely interesting opinion that I read for the firs time today and it has been making its rounds on the web. I believe it explains the case for armed teachers better than I, and brings up a point I neglected to mention; it should be voluntary. Read it for yourself here and see what you think.
No comments:
Post a Comment