The Virginia Tech Shootings:
"Gun control: Worthwhile or not?"
Article Written By Elizabeth Johnston
Lead-in By Bob Culver - MCSM
Several weeks have passed since a criminal act at Virginia Tech
University resulted in the death of many students. Emotions have
ebbed just a bit and the logical discussion over the incident, which
actually took place right from the start, now has a chance to be
heard above the pure emotion and understood accordingly. Obviously
the firearm use stirs discussion relative to the Second Amendment and
Personal Protection as a Personal Responsibility. This is of course
the main point behind MCSM.
What follows (appears at this link) is perhaps the best succinct
discussion of the event and the Constitutional / Self Defense
ramifications of all such events. Read and learn.
Bob Culver, MCSM
By Elizabeth Johnston - Community columnist / A View from the Valley
Journal - News; Martinsburg, WV
Direct Link To Story--Click Here
Wednesday, May 09, 2007- Time:11:39:34 AMEST
In the wake of the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech, gun rights have
been a point of contention. Some think stricter gun control laws
would have prevented the massacre; others believe if the laws were
less strict, the deaths could have been cut down.
If anything, the fact Seung-Hui Cho had mental problems, which
contributed to his eventual mass murders, should make states re-
evaluate the way they treat people with mental health struggles,
especially ones who, like Cho, show violent tendencies and obviously
need treatment.
Another important consideration is that while liberals often
fervently oppose gun rights, many discourage efforts to control the
amount of violence shown in movies and video games. When children
grow up having no contact with guns except to watch actors pretend to
shoot others down, they will not have a realistic view of weapons.
The role of a gun goes from being a tool used for hunting, or more
importantly, self-defense, to a way to plug your enemies.
First and most importantly, the Constitution as it stands does not
allow the federal government to pass gun control laws, period. The
statement in the Second Amendment that "... the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is rather clear.
Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment declares, "The powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
In other words, even if the Second Amendment did not exist, it would
still be illegal for the government of the United States to pass gun
control laws since the Constitution does not delegate it that right.
That right would belong to the states. However, the Second Amendment
does not differentiate between the states and the federal government
in its stipulation.
Gun control advocates commonly assume the removal of guns from
society will remove the desire of some people to hurt others. This is
actually an assumption about human nature. Since humans are
supposedly good, bad actions have to be blamed on something -
society, in general. Not that society doesn´t have an effect on
people, but there is a major difference between saying violent video
games encourage crime and trying to pin all the blame for a crime on
a certain object.
Blaming crime on guns is like blaming a hole dug by a little boy in
someone´s flowers on the shovel he used. The little boy only uses the
shovel because he wants to dig a hole. A criminal only uses a gun
because he or she wants to hurt or kill someone. An inanimate object
is not the source of evil desires.
Would restricting guns prevent criminals from being able to carry out
crime? Frankly, no. What happened when strongly addictive drugs were
made illegal? (Note to all Journal Junction loyalists: I am not
advocating legalization.) Do we lack in illegal drugs today? As soon
as a gun ban would be enacted, criminals could begin sneaking guns
into the country just as drugs are trafficked in now.
Morton Grove, Ill., banned anyone other than police officers from
owning guns. The result? Crime immediately increased by 15.7 percent,
though the county´s crime rate rose by only 3 percent. The city´s
population has shrunk slightly.
In response, the small town of Kennesaw, Ga., enacted its own
regulation. The head of each household was to own and maintain a gun.
Kennesaw was mocked for its decision and talk of Wild West-type
shootouts as well as more realistic concerns of increased crime and
gun accidents characterized nationwide reactions to the regulation.
However, Kennesaw´s crime rate, which had formerly been above the
national average, went down, and 2005 statistics reported the rate to
be well under the national average. Although the town has more than
tripled in size, 25 years have passed since the decision and no
Kennesaw residents have been involved in a fatal shooting in any way.
The decrease in violence makes sense. People who intend to hurt
others don´t want to be faced with a weapon. Cho was in a gun-free
zone at Virginia Tech, and he knew it. People rarely try to commit
massacres where they know there will be weapons. And if they would
make the attempt, it wouldn´t last very long.
While I would not personally advocate requiring families to own guns,
we do need to be aware that it is every person´s duty to protect his
or herself. Banning guns deprives American citizens of that ancient
right.
Community columnist Elizabeth Johnston is a native of the lower
Shenandoah Valley and lives in Martinsburg. She can be reached at
murm@access.mountain.net
The views of columnists do not necessarily reflect the views of The
Journal.
By Elizabeth Johnston - Community columnist / A View from the Valley
Journal - News; Martinsburg, WV
Bob Culver is Chairman of the grass roots discussion and action group
Montgomery Citizens for a Safer Maryland. More information can be found, and
the author can be contacted at the web page
|