Another Virginia Tech Shooting, and What Should Be Done About It

Virginia Tech Shooting 12.8.11

This afternoon – December 8th, 2011 – two more innocent Americans fell prey to the pull of a trigger. Within milliseconds their lives were ended. In Blacksburg, Virginia, at the sight of the most horrific shooting by one individual in the history of the United States, two more people died.

This afternoon a campus police officer executed a routine traffic stop, not knowing it would be his last. He didn’t know the driver would have a gun, and would shoot and kill him minutes after he engaged his flashing lights to pull the driver over. But he did. The officer was shot and killed, and the gunman fled on foot, on to the campus of Virginia Tech. A quarter of a mile away he shot and killed again. At this time the identity of the second victim is unknown. By his body, police found the gun. The gunman escaped and is on the run. Despite the combination of the FBI, the Virginia State Police, the Virginia Tech Police Department, and others, this lone gunman slipped away.

Virginia Tech has already suffered immeasurable loss when thirty-two students and teachers were killed and twenty-five were injured by Seung-Hui Cho in the April 16th, 2007 massacre that garnered international media coverage. Today two more are added to the list of those killed on campus.

But what has been done about this? Within weeks of the 2007 massacre legislation was introduced in Congress in what is hailed as the most significant gun control law in over a decade. This bill – H.R. 2640 – was designed to mandate improvements in the reporting of data by states to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NCIS) with the goal of halting gun purchase by criminals, those declared mentally ill, as well as other prohibited from purchasing weapons. This legislation was signed into law on January 5th, 2008.

Why does it seem like these laws and bills always come in the wake of a massacre or tragic event? Why does Congress refuse to act on items like gun control which is an ever-present issue until there is an international outcry? Congress is more than capable of amending the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which some interpret as allowing Americans to own guns at their leisure.

The actual text of the second amendment is as follows: “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”.

If one is to literally interpret this text, it states that American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms only as part of a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state”. Nowhere does this amendment say anything about Americans having the right to own guns. This is the most popularly misquoted or abridged amendment. Gun supporters refer only to the last stanza “the right of people to keep and bear arms”, but not taking into account the first portion that has to do with being necessary for the defense of a free state. However in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court found that the second amendment allows for citizens to keep and bear arms despite not being connected to a militia, but only for lawful purposes such as self-defense inside the home.

With this in mind, any logical person would ask, “well why don’t the courts make it illegal for guns to be carried outside the home”? Although I’m sure this question has been brought up before, I couldn’t find any definitive proof of it through extensive research. However if the Supreme Court ruled that it’s legal to keep arms for the lawful purpose of self-defense inside one’s home, than why would guns be allowed anywhere besides the home?

Now of course many will argue on the side of guns, saying that they’re an equalizer. Wayne LaPierre – Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association (NRA) – was quoted as saying, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. But what if neither good guys nor bad guys had guns? Mr. LaPierre’s comment makes my stomach turn. How can anyone advocate that type of vigilante justice? There is a reason in America that we have police departments, sheriff’s departments, as well as organizations like the FBI and other anti-crime organizations. These are the good guys. These are the men and women who should have access to guns, as they are necessary to the defense of a state.

But who makes the determination who is good and who is bad when selling a gun? If we are to listen to Mr. LaPierre’s arguments than everyone should have a gun, everyone should carry a handgun with them everywhere they. Then if you see someone punch someone else and a fight break out instead of calling the police to come and handle it responsibly, you should whip out your automatic and open fire on the “bad guy”.

California Senator Tom McClintock said, “The right is absolute … government has no authority to forbid me from owning a firearm … the debate is not about guns. It is about freedom” (June 9th, 2001). Instead of being patriotic and creating a feeling of camradre and nationalism, this comment shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue. Those who advocate for gun control don’t do so to limit the freedom of those who wish to own firearms, but to create a safer and more civilized country. If that means drafting legislation that says you’re limited to one or two handguns instead of six, is that really infringing upon your freedom as an American?

In 2007 3,042 children and teens died by gunfire. Eighty-five of those were preschoolers. This was part of a report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mothers grieving for their lost sons. Brothers and sisters holding each other, watching as tiny pine boxes holding their sibling are placed in the hard, unforgiving earth. How is this right? How can this ever be right?

While I’m not suggesting gun advocates support the use of weapons against children, how can they pull the wool over their own eyes far enough to see that through advocating lenient gun control laws, they advocate more violence. Protect Children, Not Guns is an organization that promotes the safety of children with regard to guns. One statistic from their website is that states with higher rates of gun ownership and weak gun control laws have the highest rates of firearm deaths with regard to all ages, not just children.

Guns are designed with one purpose only: to kill. Ending a life is the purpose of a gun. The argument that it’s preventative, that it’s the “well it’s either me or the guy coming through my door” mentality, or that guns create a safer society is just plain wrong. Guns are designed to kill. A specially designed piece of metal, slotted into another piece of metal and projected at incredible speeds at another person is designed to kill. There is no way to deny, refute, or get around this simple fact. So why are guns allowed? Why do we as a society accept these dangerous weapons into our community? You don’t see people walking around with machetes or broadswords tucked in their pants. Why guns?

In the wake of the two deaths this afternoon at Virginia Tech, in the wake of all the other violence that stems from guns each and every year, I call upon Congress to fix the problem. Not to ignore it, not to listen to the lobbyists and accept donations from them. But to once and for all fix the system so that guns are regulated and limited. From the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords almost one year ago to today and everything in between, Congress has a responsibility to protect citizens from the gun violence. Please call your congressman, call your senator. Make sure they know how you feel about gun control. And may all victims of gun violence rest in peace. May their deaths not have been in vain.