For Gun Control
State and federal lawmakers proposed an array of popular gun
control measures after the Columbine incident. Further restrictions were to be
put on the sale of firearms, such as extending background checks and extending
the waiting period for background checks (Cothran, 2003). “Other bills would ban
the manufacture or importation of certain additional types of firearms and high
capacity ammunition clips, require trigger locks or other safety devices on all
guns sold, and create liability for gun owners who do not store their firearms
in a safe and secure manner” (Cothran, 2003, p. 144). Banning the future sale of
certain types of guns would do nothing to stop those types of guns that are
already in circulation. “Ultimately, by passing more laws, we may fool
ourselves into believing that something important has been done about the
problem of violence and youth” (Cothran, 2003, p. 145).
control measures after the Columbine incident. Further restrictions were to be
put on the sale of firearms, such as extending background checks and extending
the waiting period for background checks (Cothran, 2003). “Other bills would ban
the manufacture or importation of certain additional types of firearms and high
capacity ammunition clips, require trigger locks or other safety devices on all
guns sold, and create liability for gun owners who do not store their firearms
in a safe and secure manner” (Cothran, 2003, p. 144). Banning the future sale of
certain types of guns would do nothing to stop those types of guns that are
already in circulation. “Ultimately, by passing more laws, we may fool
ourselves into believing that something important has been done about the
problem of violence and youth” (Cothran, 2003, p. 145).
Banning Guns
Paul Helmke, president of the Brandy Campaign/Center to Prevent
Gun Violence, argues that tighter gun laws can prevent school shootings. To
protect American students, Helmke suggests that we should require background
checks for all gun sales, limit the number of guns one person can purchase, and
ban the types of guns that are used in school shootings (Friedman, 2009).
“People cause this problem and people can fix it”(Friedman, 2009, p. 53). There
is no reason for military-style assault weapons like the ones used in the
December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, to be
easily available to the American public. Until we strengthen our nation’s gun
laws, they will remain tragically weak (Friedman, 2009).
Gun Violence, argues that tighter gun laws can prevent school shootings. To
protect American students, Helmke suggests that we should require background
checks for all gun sales, limit the number of guns one person can purchase, and
ban the types of guns that are used in school shootings (Friedman, 2009).
“People cause this problem and people can fix it”(Friedman, 2009, p. 53). There
is no reason for military-style assault weapons like the ones used in the
December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, to be
easily available to the American public. Until we strengthen our nation’s gun
laws, they will remain tragically weak (Friedman, 2009).
Against Gun Control
Timothy Brezina and James D. Wright, professors of sociology at
Tulane University, argue that “the passing of additional legal restrictions on
youths’ legal access to guns will fail to reduce school violence” (Cothran,
2003, p. 139). Adolscents who obtain guns for school shootings use “illegal
channels” and would continue to do so no matter what new gun laws are passed
(Cothran, 2003). They believe the focus should be on addressing the factors that
contribute to adolescents committing acts of violence (Cothran, 2003).
According to Brezenia and Wright, there are better responses
than the popular anti-gun proposals. They believe “the gun control response to
school violence illustrates some of the problems that arise when social policy
is driven by extreme and unusual cases” (Cothran, 2003, p. 146). These laws will
do little or nothing at all to correct violence by adolescents that is not gun
related. Prevention and early intervention programs have yielded more positive
long-term results on the aggressive behavior of adolescents (Cothran, 2003).
Programs such as anti-bullying campaigns, anger management, impulse control, and
problem solving curriculum should be the focus of schools and communities.
Tulane University, argue that “the passing of additional legal restrictions on
youths’ legal access to guns will fail to reduce school violence” (Cothran,
2003, p. 139). Adolscents who obtain guns for school shootings use “illegal
channels” and would continue to do so no matter what new gun laws are passed
(Cothran, 2003). They believe the focus should be on addressing the factors that
contribute to adolescents committing acts of violence (Cothran, 2003).
According to Brezenia and Wright, there are better responses
than the popular anti-gun proposals. They believe “the gun control response to
school violence illustrates some of the problems that arise when social policy
is driven by extreme and unusual cases” (Cothran, 2003, p. 146). These laws will
do little or nothing at all to correct violence by adolescents that is not gun
related. Prevention and early intervention programs have yielded more positive
long-term results on the aggressive behavior of adolescents (Cothran, 2003).
Programs such as anti-bullying campaigns, anger management, impulse control, and
problem solving curriculum should be the focus of schools and communities.
More Guns?
Roger D. McGrath, a retired history professor, argues that gun
control allows school shootings to occur. He feels that if more Americans were
allowed to carry guns, school shootings could be prevented (Friedman, 2009).
McGrath says, “There are a million and one reasons for criminal behavior. We, as
society, can’t fix them all-although there are some that we might wish to work
on. However, given the right arms and training, we can defend against such
acts”(Friedman, 2009, p. 46). In 2002 at Appalachian Law School in Grundy,
Virginia, a frustrated student began a shooting rampage. Upon hearing the first
shoots fired, two students ran out to their vehicles and retrieved their
personal handguns. Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross were able to stop Peter
Odighizuwa from continuing his shooting spree. During the time it took Tracy and
Mikael to get their guns and return into the school, Peter had shot and killed
his professor, the dean, and a student (Friedman, 2009).
When a shooter enters a school with the intent on taking lives,
they know that they will not face armed teachers, professors, deans, principals,
or students. If college students of age, such as Tracy and Mikael, were allowed
to carry concealed handguns to their classes, perhaps they could have saved more
lives instead of wasting valuable seconds running to cars to retrieve their
guns. Our attempt to make school campuses “gun-free zones” has had deadly
repercussions.“Nowhere is this more evident that at Virginia Tech” (Friedman,
2009, p. 50). On April 16, 2007, Cho Seung-Hui brought two handguns onto campus
and brutally slayed thirty-two people (Friedman, 2009). Just one year prior to
the shooting, Virginia state legislators “considered a bill that would have
allowed students and professors with concealed carry permits to bring their guns
onto college campuses” (Friedman, 2009, p. 50). Under those circumstances, things might
have turned out a lot differently for Cho if he had to face armed students and
professors.
control allows school shootings to occur. He feels that if more Americans were
allowed to carry guns, school shootings could be prevented (Friedman, 2009).
McGrath says, “There are a million and one reasons for criminal behavior. We, as
society, can’t fix them all-although there are some that we might wish to work
on. However, given the right arms and training, we can defend against such
acts”(Friedman, 2009, p. 46). In 2002 at Appalachian Law School in Grundy,
Virginia, a frustrated student began a shooting rampage. Upon hearing the first
shoots fired, two students ran out to their vehicles and retrieved their
personal handguns. Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross were able to stop Peter
Odighizuwa from continuing his shooting spree. During the time it took Tracy and
Mikael to get their guns and return into the school, Peter had shot and killed
his professor, the dean, and a student (Friedman, 2009).
When a shooter enters a school with the intent on taking lives,
they know that they will not face armed teachers, professors, deans, principals,
or students. If college students of age, such as Tracy and Mikael, were allowed
to carry concealed handguns to their classes, perhaps they could have saved more
lives instead of wasting valuable seconds running to cars to retrieve their
guns. Our attempt to make school campuses “gun-free zones” has had deadly
repercussions.“Nowhere is this more evident that at Virginia Tech” (Friedman,
2009, p. 50). On April 16, 2007, Cho Seung-Hui brought two handguns onto campus
and brutally slayed thirty-two people (Friedman, 2009). Just one year prior to
the shooting, Virginia state legislators “considered a bill that would have
allowed students and professors with concealed carry permits to bring their guns
onto college campuses” (Friedman, 2009, p. 50). Under those circumstances, things might
have turned out a lot differently for Cho if he had to face armed students and
professors.
Gun Manufacturers
To turn the blame elsewhere, perhaps gun manufacturers should be
held responsible for gun violence in schools. After all, it is their inanimate
product that does the work for the school shooter. Dennis Henigan, director of
the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, “believes that holding gun manufacturers
accountable in court will force them to take the steps necessary to make guns
safer and ensure that they are used responsibly”(Torr, 2002, p. 136). The gun
companies would argue that they cannot be held liable when their products are
misused by consumers (Torr, 2002). With that being said, should we punish the
automobile manufacture when a reckless driver crashes one of their products and
injuries or kills innocent bystanders? I think not, we punish the person who
operated the vehicle, not the company that made it.
Jeremy Rabkin, a professor of government at Cornell University,
argues that gun manufactures should not be held responsible for gun violence and
efforts pursued will prove to be ineffective in reducing gun violence in schools
(Torr, 2002). “Gun issues are complex. Should we really leave them to be decided
by grasping trail lawyers, grandstanding city attorneys, and activist
judges”(Torr, 2002, p. 143). According to Rabkin, gun control issues should be
decided by lawmakers, not lawyers (Torr, 2002). This should be done at a state
level to enable different states to experiment with different solutions to see
which ones do and do not work towards the prevention of gun violence in
schools. “It may turn out that the most useful state efforts don’t involve
controlling outsiders but improving local schools”(Torr, 2002, p. 148).
held responsible for gun violence in schools. After all, it is their inanimate
product that does the work for the school shooter. Dennis Henigan, director of
the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, “believes that holding gun manufacturers
accountable in court will force them to take the steps necessary to make guns
safer and ensure that they are used responsibly”(Torr, 2002, p. 136). The gun
companies would argue that they cannot be held liable when their products are
misused by consumers (Torr, 2002). With that being said, should we punish the
automobile manufacture when a reckless driver crashes one of their products and
injuries or kills innocent bystanders? I think not, we punish the person who
operated the vehicle, not the company that made it.
Jeremy Rabkin, a professor of government at Cornell University,
argues that gun manufactures should not be held responsible for gun violence and
efforts pursued will prove to be ineffective in reducing gun violence in schools
(Torr, 2002). “Gun issues are complex. Should we really leave them to be decided
by grasping trail lawyers, grandstanding city attorneys, and activist
judges”(Torr, 2002, p. 143). According to Rabkin, gun control issues should be
decided by lawmakers, not lawyers (Torr, 2002). This should be done at a state
level to enable different states to experiment with different solutions to see
which ones do and do not work towards the prevention of gun violence in
schools. “It may turn out that the most useful state efforts don’t involve
controlling outsiders but improving local schools”(Torr, 2002, p. 148).