Adventures in My Mind
 |
 |
 |
 |
Apr 19, 2007
The Virginia Tech tragedy and the issue of gun control
These editorials and letters to the editor from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette speak frankly on the issue. Not surprisingly most writers from this area are strong advocates for 2nd Amendment rights. While a supporter of the entirety of The Bill of Rights, I have no issues with severely limiting the 2nd.
I wrote my own response, which may or may not be published by the paper. If not, here is what I wrote:Many who have responded on this page have talked about logic and the insensitive timing of the debate over gun control in the aftermath of the tragedy at Virginia Tech; I see none of the former and only self-serving platitudes coming from the latter.
Logic does not, as has been amply pointed out, blame a gun for the deaths of innocents. This deduction takes no kean mental insight or reasoning. It is simply a knee jerk response to the issue. Obviously, shooters kill people. Mr. Cho killed 32 and himself. The guns were simply his instrument of choice.
Logic does, however, question the ease in which he and common street criminals obtain guns. Legally or illegally, it doesn't matter. There are simply too many guns out there. And it is far to easy for a person with ill intent to get their hands on one.
Logic also states that if Mr. Cho couldn't have used hand guns in his attack that the number of victims would have been significantly reduced. One simply cannot kill 32 people at once with a knife or other deadly weapon. That fact alone cries for more restrictions on hand gun ownership.
Consider these facts published by the Open Society Institute:
- In Texas and five other states, there is no minimum legal age requirement for gun possession.
- In 48 states citizens can legally buy an assault weapon. In 43 states the purchase requires no license or registration.
- In 46 states there is no limit on the number of guns a person can buy at any one time.
- Only four states impose a limit of one handgun per month as a precaution against illegal gun trafficking.
Despite all of the regulations and restrictions that others have written about, these laws do little to protect us in events like this or the thousands of individual gun homocides that take place every year in this country. They just do not work well enough to be relied upon as the safety blanket that the gun lobby wishes them to be.
Logic suggests that, yes, we do need to do more to 1) restrict access to gun ownership, particulary hand guns and automatic weapons and 2) reduce the total amount of guns that are out there. The United States has the largest citizen owned armory in the world, somewhere around 235 millions guns. We also have the highest amounts of gun-related deaths of any developed nation. The correlation between those facts is not coincidental.
And as for showing sensitivity to the victims and their families by tabling the gun control debate until some predetermined period of grief is over, that sentiment is both disingenuous and absurd. What greater sensitivity can we show toward these victims than addressing one of the primary causes for their losses in the first place? That and addressing issues of mental health and our culture's dangerous obsession with celebrity and violence show more compassion and sensitivity than a million candle light vigils or crimson and orange ribbons.
Saying that we should talk about these issues later is nothing more than a way to stifle the debate. Yes, we are all grief stricken over this horrendous act of violence. But are we going to do about it? Will we sit in stunned silence with our heads bowed, only to raise them and hope that our shared grief will be a shield against the next attack? Or will we have the strength for discussions and debates that go beyond partisan sound bites and address the underlying issues?
Logic and sensitivity suggest that we act.
2 Comments | Link to this post posted by Teddy 2:53 PM
