Trigger Un-Happy
Margaret Wright - January 19, 2004

Gun control is certainly a loaded topic. I used to insist that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right and that should close the case. And yes, it's true; everyone has the right to own a gun. However, the more I see and hear about them, the more I think they're simply not a good idea, whether we are allowed to have them or not. Gun control that doesn't take away the right completely is not a bad thing; it's simply a safety measure and a matter of common sense. Nevertheless, the fact is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. The push for increased gun control is only a band-aid for a deeper problem.

Some people feel that they need guns for defense and to protect their families. Others enjoy hunting or trying their skill at the shooting range. There is no doubt that guns can be dangerous, but if we look at it that way, we'll still have knives, broken glass, baseball bats, bombs, etc. to worry about. Guns might be more destructive, but even without them, violence will still be a problem. If we start infringing on personal liberties, when will we stop? Most people don't understand that guns are not the cause of all the problems. Even with high gun sales, crime has actually been decreasing; there has been a 3.1% decrease in violent crime in the first 6 months of 2003, and it has been on the decline since 1993. On TV we see a different story, mostly because the media chooses what to cover. A shoot-out is a much more interesting story than a person hit by a car, or even a happy story like someone winning the lottery. The media is fueled by sensationalism, and the public has an appetite for blood rather than bliss. Shootings happened before, but we didn't hear about them as often. As a result, we see things as worse than they really are. It's all about ratings, and tolerance attracts fewer viewers than school shootings, so people are getting terrible misconceptions.

We have the right to bear arms, within reason. Obviously artillery like nuclear and biological weapons should be restricted, and guns are controlled also. As it stands, you need a permit in order to buy handguns, which you can only get after you pass a background check. There is a waiting period, in which information is verified and a permit is issued by an authorized government official. The U.S. Code covers firearms in depth. You must have a permit to acquire and possess a firearm, depending on the laws of the State of your residence, and that permit can't be more than 5 years old in order to purchase a new firearm. You must be at least 18, in some cases 21, to own a firearm. You cannot be sold a gun if you have ever been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, or if you are an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance, or if you have a court order against you, or if you've been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Machine guns are completely illegal, and there are a bunch of stipulations forbidding firearms in school zones. There are lots of laws intended to control the sale and use of firearms, but the reality is people break laws. You can't force people to obey; you can only threaten them with consequences if they don't comply. As such, there is a whole section in the Code devoted to penalties. Our country has gun control, so maybe that's not the answer. Guns should be controlled, and they are, so it's not the guns that are causing our problems.

So what is? We should be looking at why people are using guns, rather than simply trying to get rid of them. Taking away guns prevents the symptoms from exposing themselves, but it doesn't solve the real problem. Undoubtedly one reason is that some people are seriously disturbed and make horrible choices. It could be how you're raised. It could be a thirst for violence, or a media that shoves it in our face. The public may think that guns are more of a problem than they actually are. An overwhelming answer to "why" is people's lack of responsibility. People need to lock guns up, and keep them away from kids. In the case of the shooting at Columbine High School, the guns were purchased legally by adults, but the kids weren't supposed to have them. Parents shouldn't blame outside sources like music and movies - they should keep a closer eye on their kids. It's hard to believe that a parent wouldn't notice that their son had been planning and preparing an attack for months. Children wouldn't go after guns if they were raised better. This is not always the case, but if people paid more attention and cared more about one another much of these incidents wouldn't happen. It is a parent or caregiver's responsibility to make their children aware of the dangers of guns and to reinforce safety.

Is it something in our history that makes Americans particularly violent? Sure, we've been involved in many combat situations: the Vietnam War, dropping the atomic bomb, the forceful removal of dictators, aided assassinations, etc. However, other countries have violent histories as well. France has its bloody revolution and Napoleon, Germany gained notoriety with Hitler, and Britain is famous for its imperialism. The pasts of other countries are equally filled with violence and murder. So why are guns an especially big problem here? What is different about Americans? Is it the sensationalism of the media and the fear it instills in the American people? Is it the violence in entertainment with its bloody epic shootouts featured in movies? Foreigners listen to the same music and watch the same films. Most violent video games are from Japan. Is it a fractured society? There are more broken homes in England. Poverty exists in other countries, and in many cases is worse. American society seems to be pretty much the same as elsewhere, but in Canada, only 165 people are killed by guns in a year, compared to 11,127 in the United States.

In his documentary Bowling For Columbine, Michael Moore also wondered what made Canadians more peaceful than Americans. It's not the amount of guns, because Canada is full of them. Could it be because their news is tamer? Our media specializes in scare tactics. Indifference could be the answer. In the United States we have countless social problems, but the poor are not a priority. Canadians seem to have an entirely different attitude. They provide universal health insurance. They also seem to be more tolerant, and less scared and suspicious of their neighbors. Even without a clear answer, the mounting facts are pointing to something other than guns. When it comes to Columbine, the real problem was not that the assailants got hold of guns. It's that those two kids were harassed enough to make them want to use them. Kids are notoriously cruel. Obviously the gunmen's actions are unforgivable, but circumstances probably would have been different if their fellow students had been nice to them, or reached out to them instead of contributing to their misery.

Two major consequences of the shooting was an attack on violence in entertainment, and a push for increased gun control. It wasn't the music Eric or Dylan listened to, or that they could get guns, it was the kids who picked on them and the relentless cruelty of the typical high school hierarchy that incited them to use them. Millions of people listen to Marilyn Manson, and yet the majority of these fans aren't violent. You can't say because they listened to that music they killed people. What people need to take from this is not that we need to start censoring music and television and outlaw guns, but that we need to be more compassionate and think twice before we willfully hurt another person with words or otherwise. And on the flip side, hopefully troubled kids will see violence is not the answer. No matter how much someone annoys you or belittles you, it is inhuman to create such carnage and devastation. Instead of learning from the experience, it appears that similar crimes have escalated. Any student will tell you that high school is Hell - if you're not part of the popular clique or the athletic jocks, you're going in everyday targeted for blows to your self-esteem, jeers, taunts, jokes, etc. There is nothing wrong with being "weird" or anti-social, but kids have to learn to be more accepting.

In reaction to the tragedy, school officials all over the country began tightening up security, installing metal detectors, and subjecting students to scrutiny. Going overboard is not the right prevention technique; it only makes the situation more uncomfortable. Students are getting severely punished for carrying nail clippers, making paper guns, and wearing t-shirts with offensive sayings. If that is effective, why are destructive incidents still occurring? Not everyone is a criminal, so students shouldn't be treated like they are. Implementing dress codes and forcing students to walk through metal detectors as they enter the building makes it seem like students are going to jail rather than school. Instead of enforcing a dress code to make it impossible for students to conceal weapons, school administrations should be concentrating their efforts on informing their students of the dangers of weapons. Should we fear children? No. We should try to help them instead of trying to protect ourselves from them.

Maybe we'll never find a concrete answer to why people use guns and why they are such a problem in America. We'll never be able to do away with violence, but then what should be done about gun control? People should be allowed to have guns, albeit it a regulated privilege. However, I see this as less of a legal issue and more of a social awareness concern. We have laws, but people need to open their eyes. If you really saw and thought about guns, you might begin to realize that their biggest problem is that they're unnecessary. They are necessary for the solider and for the hunter, but not especially necessary for the average American. If you own a gun you ought to have it locked up and stored safely so it doesn't present a danger. But in the event someone actually does break into your home, it would take too long to actually get the gun. It's dangerous to have a gun loaded and at the ready, and yet, if not, it isn't much use in a situation where the threat is immediate. Hence, it's probably best not to have a gun at all. If one imagined themselves in a situation wherein gun use was warranted, would they be able to actually pull the trigger? I don't think I could. It is very extreme to kill a person. Unless a gun was being held to a loved one's head and I needed to intervene by killing the gunman first, I couldn't shoot someone. And let's face it, I doubt that situation is ever going to happen. If a robber breaks into your home, it's too severe to kill them. You might intend to shoot them in the leg to stop them, but what if you miss? Sure, you want to protect your property, but don't shoot to kill. Only in extreme cases would it be appropriate to use a gun, and these don't happen often. I'm not going to tell you that you can't own a gun, but honestly, why do you need to? Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you have to use it on principle. "Because you can" is not a good reason to own a gun, and most guns have no useful purpose.

However, the right to bear arms is a personal liberty. I may not want a gun, but someone else might feel safer knowing they have one. Despite the media telling me everyday that I need to fear them, guns don't scare me as much as losing freedom. Millions of people own guns and only a fraction of them use them for bad reasons. It's unfair to penalize those who are innocent and responsible who want to exercise their rights. As long as guns are used sensibly and stored safely, we can't deny people's constitutional right. We don't need more gun control, we need to change the way people think. Instead of making more laws people are going to break, we should raise awareness, offer anger management, or make more documentaries like Bowling for Columbine to get these points across. Make people see that guns have no useful purpose, and they won't want guns. That's the best gun control.