The Newtown Shooting in Connecticut was last Friday. In the aftermath, the nation has come together to support the victims and survivors. The massacre has also spawned a renewed gun control debate. Those in favor of gun control, NY Mayor Bloomberg and California Senator Dianne Feinstein among them, are more outspoken. A few pro-gun individuals have also come out to support an assault weapons ban (which the president had campaigned on in his first term, but did not accomplish) as well as a ban on high capacity magazines. The NRA has stayed silent until today, when it came out with a message offering condolences as well as an announcement that they'll have another announcement on Friday. Pro-gun legislators have gone into self-exile, but whether this is because they feel now would be an unpopular or inappropriate time to bring up the issue, or because they are waiting for leadership (from the NRA or some other politician), or because they are struggling with their own ideals, has yet to be seen.
One idea that I find ludicrous has been the idea that we should arm our educators and school administrators. I for one am a huge fan and supporter of teachers, but keeping firearms at school with the absurd notion that they would do good than harm is sickening. Having guns in the home is bad enough. Used properly, they can be an asset, but all to often individuals find a false sense of security which dulls them to other options aside from the one of last resort. An intruder on their property? Shoot him. Let that f'ing idiot suffer for trespassing - he should have known better. It feels great to wield that much power. It feels great until the police respond to your 911 call only to unmask the culprit who turns out to be your son who was playing a practical joke, sneaking out, or sneaking back in from a late night rendezvous. That's an exception - how often is that going to happen, you ask.
Actually, it happened just a few months ago. A father was contacted by his daughter next door who thought there was a prowler. The father went outside with his gun and saw a masked individual with a knife. When the person failed to identify himself, the father shot him. He then sat on the grass and waited for the police to arrive. It was the police who revealed the son's identity hours later, with the father sobbing and vomiting at the realization of what he had actually done. The father was a good person - he and his wife had adopted the son & daughter whose father was on his way to prison. His students and coworkers reported that he was an excellent and popular teacher. Guns can visit evil on even the best intentioned people. Even professionally trained law-enforcement officers have killed innocent individuals because of misunderstandings (children playing with unmarked toy guns) or injured innocent bystanders (NYPD - again just a few months ago) in pursuit of an actual "bad guy".
Individuals in opposition to gun control offer varying arguments. On my way to work this morning I had the unfortunate opportunity to listen to a couple local dunces on a pop music station. Their main arguments included 1) I have a constitutional right to bear arms and 2) these guns were the mom's, not the son's. I wanted to go and punch the guys in the face. When the constitution was written, a few guys with automatic or semi-automatic rifles which were non-existent at the time probably could have taken out a whole regiment of soldiers; the only sweat would be from holding up the gun and dealing with the recoil. I'm sure our founding fathers did not intend that each of their citizens have the right to pack cannons in their backyard sheds. Secondly - YES, a ban on assault weapons and/or high capacity magazines may have prevented this tragedy! The mother recently bought those weapons. She and the son went to the range and practiced using them! If a ban had been in place, she likely wouldn't have had them.
This brings us to the final, and most absurd, portion of the argument against an assault weapons & high capacity magazine ban. The shooters could always have found other ways of killing their victims. ABSOLUTELY TRUE. They could have built a bomb, mowed people down with a car, killed with a knife or a hand gun. All of that is completely and absolutely true as well as complete and absolute bullshit. If I plan on making a bomb, I need to purchase the ingredients and fly under the radar of my family, my neighbors, law enforcement, and the individuals selling me the indivual components - I can't just take my mom's bomb, or steal my friend's bombs. Next, I'd have to find a place where I could detonate the bomb and have a large number of people around me to inflict maximum carnage. It sounds easy, but it's not. Next, I'd have to get the bomb in place unnoticed and then I'd have to set it off without interference. Possible? Yes. But it's NOT AS EASY as taking an automatic weapon to a mall, movie theater, or school to mow people down!
A car? People can run out of the way. A pistol? You can't shoot as many rounds, and you can't shoot as quickly. A knife? Less deadly, close range, and susceptible to being taken down or disarmed. Still going to happen? Yes. Fewer deaths? Most definitely.
So this brings me back to the whole "arm our teachers" thing. Our teachers, I believe, enter their professions because they want to do right by the next generation. They go into schools to educate our children in the hopes that they can help them become productive citizens. How much harm do we want to inflict on them? What kind of psychological impact would it have on our educators when faced with the decision to pull the trigger on their own student(s)? What kind of challenges would we face when kids, feeling that they are unfairly treated by a teacher, or in fear of their teacher, bring their own guns to protect themselves? There are simpler, less deadly ways.
Violence will continue regardless of gun laws, just as the killing of rare animals will continue regardless of endangered species lists. That does not mean we shouldn't have them. It doesn't mean that shouldn't try to enforce them. We may not be able to save everyone, but if your child, brother, sister, parent, cousin, friend, lover, partner, co-worker, neighbor, mentor, loved one, or companion is that one person that it does save, wouldn't you want that law in place? I would.
