Column: Gun control needs to be reasonable
Jacob Caporaletti, CT Regular Columnist
April 25, 2007
With the school and the nation still reeling from the horrific events of April 16, the finger pointing is underway. In between mourning for the victims, there is renewed controversy. It happened with Columbine and it's happening again. Even though many factors contributed to the tragedy, much of the debate revolves around the issue of gun control.
Guns are an easy target. Without guns, Cho Seung-Hui's bloody rampage wouldn't have been possible. By this logic, many people are crying out for the state and the country to reconsider the gun laws. But that pesky Second Amendment stands in the way along with Virginia being a historically pro-gun state. It didn't take long for President Bush to weigh in. He voiced his support of the Second Amendment the same day as the shooting. But regardless of personal opinion and high emotions, it's important to take a step back and look at the issues.
First there's the pro-gun argument. They'll point out that tragedies like the one Tech faced, as well as Columbine, happened in gun-free zones. The people caught in the crossfire were sitting ducks because they didn't have a means to defend themselves. Some boldly claim that concealed weapons would have saved lives, but that's a gross overstatement because we can never know if anything would have been different.
Then there's the anti-gun argument. They'll point out how other countries have long since restricted gun access. Shortly after the tragedy, Australia went so far as to criticize America's gun culture and proclaimed their new plans to curb gun ownership. But they never refer to statistics that clearly show that gun-free areas have a much higher crime rate than areas where guns are allowed. They believe that if the guns weren't available for Cho to buy, he wouldn't have done what he did. The problem with that argument is that it assumes he would have accepted those laws. And criminals by their definition don't respect laws.
Each side could argue for hours on end, and they'll never come to a consensus. But here are some simple truths. America is not like Europe. Historically speaking, guns were vital in shaping the American landscape. Without guns, America wouldn't have gained its independence or settled the west. In contrast, the Europeans have a history of being ruled by monarchies that worried that the people would rise up and overthrow them for ruling in unjust ways. Therefore, they kept the people disarmed. The founding fathers understood that, and that's why the Second Amendment was conceived in the first place.
Another thing people have to realize is that not everyone should have a gun. If someone has a history of violence, deviance or mental illness then common sense dictates that giving them a gun can only lead to trouble. You want a law that will help keep guns out of the hands of psychos? It's simple. If you have been admitted to a mental hospital, had run-ins with the law and have been deemed a threat to yourself or others by a doctor or counselor, then you can't have a gun. Cho fit every one of these criteria and yet he passed the background check at the gun store he bought his arms from. Could the problem be any clearer?
It is also worth noting that there is less crime today than there was 40 years ago. Statistics also show that violence in schools has dropped. The problem is that Columbine and now Virginia Tech garner so much media attention that the public is led to believe that the problem is greater than it really is. Human nature does the rest. We see something that looks scary or threatening and then we react to it with fear and anxiety. Traumatic events will always be traumatic. Tragedies will always be horrible. Just because guns are an easy scapegoat doesn't mean they're the root of the problem. Humans are complex creatures and they act in complex ways. Cho Seung-Hui was far from typical and shouldn't be generalized as this festering problem.
Human nature aside, the Second Amendment isn't going away and neither is the gun issue. But for whatever reform we push in wake of this tragedy, it is important to step back and look at what we're doing. A lot of people are still hurting, and before we can deal with the legal issues, it's important we handle the personal issues first.