I am still recovering from the shooting in Newton, CT. As I read about what happened, I think of my own children with teary eyes. I think of all those innocent children who didn’t have a chance to live their full life. I think of all the grieving family who would never see their children or family member again. I think of my oldest child’s elementary school, how open it is, how dangerous that is. All visitors are expected to report to the office, but that wouldn’t be something on a crazed gunman’s mind if he were on a rampage for blood.
As expected, this shooting has opened yet another debate about gun control in the United States. Should we have stricter gun laws? Would this prevent such massacres from happening?
I read in the news that State Senator Leland Yee is already looking at reintroducing a gun control bill that died in committee earlier this year (SB 249).
Pro guns people and organizations argue that in order to stop mass murderers, we need to have the right to carry. Someone will be more reluctant to go about shooting innocent people if they know that a setting or an establishment will have people who carry guns.
My question is, will someone care whether or not a place is heavily armed when they go on a crazed shooting spree? Most of these mass murderers commit suicide, so it wouldn’t matter to them if they went to a heavily armed establishment and got killed.
Gun owners will argue that if someone wants to kill another person, they will use whatever means necessary. If they don’t have guns, they will opt for a knife. If they don’t have a knife, they will use something else.
Anti-gun advocates will argue that guns are effectively deadly weapons. One bullet can instantly kill a person. A person may or may not die from a knife wound.
There was an attack similar to Newton, CT yesterday in Henan, China. The only difference is instead of a gun, the crazed man had a knife. He went to school and slashed down 22 children and one adult. It was a gruesome attack with severed fingers and ears, but everyone survived. Would the children of Sandy Hook Elementary had survived if Adam Lanza had a knife? Probably.
Those who want to relinquish guns argue that guns beget violence. If people didn’t have the right to own and carry, we wouldn’t have innocent people dying from the hands of trigger-happy psychos. Take a look at Japan, who has the most strictest gun control laws compared to other developed countries. Gunpolicy.org reports that there were only 11 firearms homicides in Japan in 2008 versus 9,484 in the US. The FBI reported 8,583 murders by guns in 2011.
What would happen if we were to make it as hard to get a gun as getting a driver’s license and owning a car? But that wouldn’t prevent someone from getting a hold of a gun. I remember in high school how I took my mother’s car and drove it around the block even though I didn’t have a license or owned the car.
Gun control a very complicated issue. There are civilians who obey the laws and own guns. They have guns for protection, sports, hobbies. Are we going to make it harder for these people to have guns because of something they haven’t done?
I am spilling at the brim with questions and thoughts that I don’t even know what to think.
Would banning guns or having stricter gun control laws stop violence? Would giving people the right to carry arms prevent these horrendous mass murders from happening? The massacres in Aurora, CO, the Wisconsin Sikh temple, Virgina Tech, Columbine. I really don’t know.