Looking for Answers Amidst the Din

There has been a great deal of talk in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.  I’ve been reluctant to chime in sooner because I think people have been too quick to do so and in the process, some pretty illogical utterances have been broadcast over the airwaves.  Worse are those who are taking the tragedy to advance a political cause which is as specious as it is manipulative and opportunistic.  I am speaking of guns and the laws which seek to limit the same.  As a teacher, my friends have asked me my thoughts on how to stop further school shootings.  I’m quick to admit that my current profession provides no insights.  While I have some thoughts on the issue, I’m at a loss to explain the unexplainable or to propose a strategy of defense against the indefensible.     

One of the first and most often attacked targets is, of course, guns.  In the interest of full disclosure, I am a gun owner and therefore, what I say on the subject should be understood in that light.  New gun laws and gun restrictions would not have prevented the events in Sandy Hook Elementary (the shooter stole the weapons he used) and so should not be considered as some special elixir for gun violence in schools.  The only thing such measures do is prevent law-abiding citizens from getting guns and making it a one-sided fight.  Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and the cities with equally strong anti-gun measures are some of the most violent.   

However, there is one proposed suggestion about which I’m not sure – arming teachers.  I would feel comfortable carrying or using a gun should I be unfortunate enough to need to do so.  Yet, I’ve been teaching for eighteen years and there are a great many former colleagues that I would not want anywhere near a gun.  Moreover, one or two teachers or a principal with a gun cannot possibly cover the size and scale of many public schools today.  One would have to arm a certain percentage of the staff relevant to where their classes are to make it effective.  Additionally, it is not practical or economically viable for school districts to initiate such a program and the pre-requisite training and screening that would almost certainly go along with such a policy.   

Others have pointed to a culture of violence and that is certainly something that should be examined; however, it is beyond the scope of government – or should be.  Comedian George Carlin once said that he would rather his kids watch two people make love than kill each other but the way our culture has developed is to put greater restrictions on sexual content in programs and video games than that of violence.  Rabid anti-gun advocates are quick to move away from this conversation because it has the potential of derailing their attempts to take advantage of this situation.  However, the cultural elements must be considered.  To that end, consider this.  In a country with a long and uninterrupted history of gun ownership, such incidents are new – in the last 15 years.  Therefore, guns cannot be a major cause of this but something that has changed over the same time period.  To answer this concern, one must turn towards our culture and the traits that have altered and changed over this period. 

I do not profess to have all the answers though I am aware enough to know, based on past experiences and experiments, what will not work.  The anti-gun crowd is hoping that a wave of emotionalism will do where logic and evidence failed in the past.  Meanwhile, a handful of people are looking at what types of entertainment we are viewing and enjoying.  In the end, twenty-six people are dead and nothing we do will change that.  How we respond could prevent the next occasion but that is not guaranteed.  The level of anguish stems partly from our inability to answer questions.  Our answers lie within a disturbed young man who decided to end it all after his rampage.  Perhaps, our future lies in psychology and a better treatment and understanding of those in need.  It is a good place to start.

The Folly of an Old Argument

In the wake of the tragic events in Colorado, some seek to take the opportunity to rehash an old argument – the elimination or reduction of weapons in the United States.  Social and political liberals feel that the only way to reduce such happenings is to simply eliminate the ability to purchase advanced weaponry.  Some go so far as to ban the sale of any weapon.  While it is true that these activists are capitalizing on a horrific event that is not what concerns me.  The truth is that draconian measures against weapons are not effective and indeed, only hurt the innocent and law-abiders.   

For many international observers, Americans’ obsession with and adherence to gun rights is perplexing at best, unbelievable at worst.  The nature of U.S. development depended upon the idea of the “citizen soldier.”  From the earliest days of the colonies until well into the 19^th-century, soldiers were as likely to report for duty with their own rifle or other weapon then depend on a government issued firearm.  Until the late 19^th-century, Americans were still exploring unchartered territory and weapons, be they handguns or rifles, were essential for defense.  The traditions of hunting and self-defense are the basic reason why the majority of Americans agree with gun ownership of one type or another.  It is the reason why they resist demands to give up their weapons and why some internationally find themselves philosophically against what some represent. 

In the worst crime-laden cities (Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago and Detroit), city leaders passed some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.  Law-abiding citizens, fearful of their lives and when accosted, had little with which to fight back, had no options but belated phone calls to police long after the perpetrators fled.  City leaders promised that gun restrictions would ebb the amount of violence but crime rates remained (remain) high and indeed, the only people who are impacted by the laws are legitimate citizens.  Those using weapons for crimes do not register or purchase weapons legally.  Therefore, their access to firearms remained unfettered and conditions continued to deteriorate and proved increasingly dangerous for the average law-abiding citizen.  In the last two years, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Second Amendment to the Constitution yet, the recent events in Colorado have brought the issues back to the fore.

Personally, I think that certain military grade weapons have no business in civilian hands but I have an unwavering belief that we are allowed by the Constitution to have individual firearms.  The problem with eliminating some is that it quickly leads to the elimination of all firearms.  Some states allow for concealed handgun licenses and it would have been interesting if someone in that theater had had a pistol.  On a news talk show, I heard an activist say that such a scenario would have created a worse blood bath.  Her paradigm suggests that any positive reason of a firearm destroys her entire argument against them.  The Aurora, Colorado theater was already a blood bath – unfortunately, it was a one-sided affair.  That is the future of activists’ arguments. 

Gun ownership in the U.S. has always been accompanied by training and responsibility as well as instruction on the history of weapons in the U.S.  It is one reason why so many gun advocates are well familiar with the Second Amendment and the country’s history in relation to weapons.  As for the demented man in Colorado, no society can prevent or anticipate previously undocumented insanity and to burden society with such a task shows the folly of anti-gun activists’ point of view.  The best that Americans can do is being prepared when the unpredictable happens.