In times such as these, emotions across the nation run high as we collectively grieve for the victims and their families. We want to know how this could happen...why would someone ever want to harm the most precious and innocent among us...our children. We want to feel safe...that this could never happen to us, or any of those we love. We are angry, and righteously so. We want someone to blame for letting it happen. We want assurance that steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence. We feel helpless and afraid.
We must look for real, workable solutions and not, as is done too many times in our society, simply actions that soothe our emotions and assuage our fears.This is all understandable. It's a natural reaction to such an unfathomable and terrible event. But in our grief...in our anger, we must be careful not to let emotions rule. Already the media talking heads with their anti-gun agendas are calling for stricter gun laws. This appeals to our fears and insecurities. After all, if no one had guns, this couldn't have happened...right? Well, solutions based on fear and insecurity are seldom wise, and usually don't achieve the desired goals. We must look for real, workable solutions and not, as is done too many times in our society, simply actions that soothe our emotions and assuage our fears.
First of all, lets look at some hard realities:
No one can ever make you completely safe.
This is indeed a hard truth. We want to feel safe in our homes, schools, shopping malls, etc. But life is fragile and easily disrupted or destroyed. This can be through accidents, natural disasters, disease or malevolent actions by others.
While it is certainly logical to try to reduce risk in life, safety comes with trade-offs. You must make judgments everyday, in every part of life on what you are willing to give up to feel safer. You can choose to race around in a sports car that you really enjoy...or safely obey every speed limit and traffic law in boxy soccer mom car with the highest safety ratings, and lowest fun ratings...or not drive at all because the Center for Disease Control (CDC) identifies motor vehicle injuries as a "leading cause of death for people age 5-34"...higher than suicide, homicide and cancers. The vast majority of us fall between Speed Racer and Soccer Mom. We wear a seat belt and drive reasonably safely, but most of us bend the traffic laws and try to drive something we like.
Guns don't kill people.
I know...this is a controversial one, especially in the wake of the Newtown tragedy. But, it's more than a NRA cliche...it happens to be true. A gun is a tool...like many other tools we have in our world. Guns can be used for sport...for defense...or offensively...just like cars. On the CDC's National Vital Statistics report (December 23, 2009), in a List of 113 selected causes of death, firearms related deaths do not appear until #100-Accidental Discharge of Firearms...under #1-Samonela, #96-Motor Vehicle Accidents, and #99-Accidental Falls. Others include: #105-Suicide by Firearm, #106-Suicide by other means, #107-Homicide by firearm, #108-Homicide by other instrument, and #113-Complications of Medical Care.
So are firearms dangerous? Absolutely. When used carelessly or with malicious intent, they are deadly like many other tools of mankind. Keep it in perspective, though. If a criminal, terrorist, or psychotic wants to inflict mass causalities they can do it without a gun. Just a few examples are:
- September 11, 2001 - Of course everyone remembers when more than 3000 people were killed by terrorists who crashed planes into the World Trade Center twin-towers, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field.
- April 19, 1995 - Oklahoma City Bombing. Domestic terrorists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, along with other accomplices killed 168 people and injured 680 others with a truckload of fertilizer chemicals.
- March 25, 1990 - Happy Land fire. Unemployed Cuban refugee Julio González killed 87 people at the Happy Land social club with a plastic container of gasoline and two matches.
So what do we do?
Surely it's not all hopeless. We certainly don't have to just lay down and accept that we're all just helpless prey for psychopaths and criminals. Wouldn't gun laws help to reduce the risk of such tragedies happening again? I believe the answer is a resounding NO.
"During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower."No laws will eliminate guns. That genie is already out of the bottle. There are millions and millions of guns in this country. Stricter laws may get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but will not make them impossible to obtain. Criminals of all types will still have them...there will be a thriving black market for guns brought in from outside the country. I heard former US Representative J. D. Hayworth say just this morning on the radio (and I'm paraphrasing): If stricter gun laws are passed in this country, of course the law abiding will follow the law. But those with no compunction, no compulsion to follow the law...the lawless...will not. How is it that we would be helping the law abiding citizens by abridging their rights to defend themselves against the lawless? The result of stricter gun laws would be a citizenry that is defenseless against criminals, and there would still be many other methods for psychotics to use to commit mass mayhem.
It may feel good to think that a law can eliminate something you feel is bad for society, but tell me how that worked for the prohibition of alcohol...or illegal drugs. If strict handgun laws worked to reduce crimes committed with a firearm, you would expect the cities and areas with the strictest laws would have the lowest crime...right. In fact, the opposite is true. Cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Washington D. C. have, or have had some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. They have also been the areas with the highest violent crime rates. In fact, the Just Facts web site noted that, "During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower."
I hear you saying, "If stricter gun laws won't work, then where right back where we started...helpless, right?" Of course not. That attitude is only a result of years and decades of being trained that the Federal government is the only source of solutions. In fact, the government has very few real solutions. No, the solutions lie with our local communities...with our States. Since we cannot hope to get all guns off the streets...since we know criminals will continue to have guns...since we know that we can never be completely protected, not even by the police or government, we have to take matters into our own hands...not as individuals for schools and public places, but as communities, school districts, cities, counties and States.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ~ Amendment X, United States Constitution
I once heard the president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) say that when people ask him why he felt someone needed to be able to have firearms for personal protection, since that's why we have a police force, he would ask them if they should be allowed to have a fire extinguisher in their homes. Most people say of course you should be allowed to have a fire extinguisher. Why, he would ask, isn't that why we have fire departments?
The point is, when a violent crime is being perpetrated against individuals, families, group, or school children, the police cannot respond quickly enough to avert or reduce loss of life. Just as a fire extinguisher in a home or public building cannot prevent a fire, but can help eliminate or contain it to save lives and property, so also a gun in the hands of a law abiding and trained private citizen at the scene of a violent crime can be used to end or contain a shooting incident. The Just Facts web site notes that, "Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year." That is almost a million incidents a year where the criminal would have came out on top and many lives would have been taken if these citizens would have been prevented, by law, from defending themselves.
"Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year."Policemen cannot be everywhere...just as firemen can't. Policemen usually don't prevent violent crime, they show up after it's over to pick up the pieces...just like firemen with a fire. We, as a society, feel no compunction against teaching citizens, from children to senior citizens, how to prevent and survive fires. In fact, we feel compelled to do so. We should likewise feel compelled to train our citizens to defend themselves and others from violent crime...to build a new local militia, of sorts, of trained and certified citizens who would be able to react to violent crimes quickly, because they would be everywhere throughout the community... legally armed and at the ready. I'm not saying that we should create some kind of armed para-police organization, but simply citizens living their lives who could confront crime if it happens to them or those around them.
Over the past several years, with stories such as the Newtown shooting or deadly crimes in my local area, I have become more and more determined to to carry my legally procured and registered handgun with me as often as possible. I pray that I will never have to use my guns in self defense, but I have decided that if such a crime would happen when I'm around, I will be able to act to save my own life, my family or other complete strangers. I feel it is my duty as a husband, father, and member of society. I know that there are many out there, like myself, who have been willing to purchase the weapons and ammunition, to get training, and submit to background checks to become licensed to carry legally. If more training were available, many like myself, would be willing to get it at their own cost.
But, what about the schools?
Schools are places with a special designation as "No Gun Zones." The laws passed to create this designation were meant to protect our students and prevent gun violence on our campuses. As we have seen from Columbine, to Virginia Tech, to Sandy Hook Elementary, these laws have no power to prevent a person, or group of persons from entering campus and killing students and faculty. In fact, since everyone knows that no guns are allowed on campus, there is no one to defend against attack. The laws have, as so many other such well-intentioned pieces of legislation, had the opposite effect...they have made the schools targets.
While I don't think it is necessarily a good idea to just allow people to randomly wander onto school property with firearms. We should take real steps that none-the-less help defend our children. I propose the removal of the Gun Free Zone restrictions and allow facility and staff, once properly screened and trained, to carry hand guns on school grounds. This should be a voluntary program and require both background and psychological screening. These screenings should be periodic. Training should also include gun safety, weapons retention, escalation of force doctrine, as well as marksmanship and defensive shooting. They should be taught concealment techniques so that no one, students or other staff members, ever even know they have a weapon.
Training and screening should be done by independent, non-governmental agencies to avoid political agendas. Identities and numbers of teachers in each school who participate in the program should be kept private to the school district. Some schools within a district may have high participation...some may have none. But, if the public doesn't know which school is which, this alone will be a deterrent to would be assailants who will not want to risk going into an area where there may be armed defenders.
Would this have kept the mentally unstable 20 year old from coming to Sandy Hook Elementary with guns? Likely no. Could it have stopped him before he took so many lives...could it have saved 20 children? Very likely. Only having armed personnel in place will stop a determined murderer. Waiting for police response is too little too late. By the time the police show up, the damage is done and the assailant has escaped or committed suicide.
I believe this approach, along with other systems of lock-downs, security cameras, alarm and notification systems, and training of the children is the only hope to provide any real level of protection for our schools.
We must insist that our elected officials stop using such tragedies to further their own political agendas. They must find effective and realistic solutions. Gun laws do not work...it is proven in our cities...it is proven by the fact that Gun Free Zones don't work. We must take the emotions out of the calculation and implement real-world, viable solutions. Let's all take a breath, settle down and set about making schools truly safer.
