ack.

You all know the stories, 13 killed at Columbine, 33 at Virginia Tech. After these tragedies (and others) occurred, there were many questions floating around.
“Why did this happen?”
“Will it happen again?”
“What can we do to prevent it?”
The only thing that there seemed to be more of than questions in the weeks after the shootings was answers. Everyone seemed to have some answer, some theory, some proposal that would supposedly explain everything. The FBI’s top columbine investigator, along with several physiatrists, published a news article that can be found on slate.com sighting such causes as video games, social climate, bullying, Goth subculture, and music. They also claimed that Eric Harris (one of the columbine shooters) was a psychopath with a superiority complex and that Dylan Klebold (the other columbine shooter) was depressive. Nowhere in this article, however, was the issue of firearms ever mentioned, so I did some research of my own. According to the violence policy center, the guns used in the columbine shooting were an Intratec TEC-DC9 assault pistol, a Hi-Point 9mm Carbine, a Savage 67H pump-action shotgun, and a Savage 311-D 12-gauge shotgun. The legal age for the shotguns, which were purchased at a gun show, is 18 and the legal age for the pistol was 21. Klebold, who was 17 years old, was underage but Harris, who was 18, was not, at least for the shotguns. As for the TEC-DC9, it was purchased from a pizza shop employee named Mark (who knew they were underage) for $500.
What are weapons with that kind of killing power doing in the hands of high school students? Is it possible that the cause of the shooting could be much simpler then people are making it out to be, is it possible that it doesn’t involve intense psychoanalysis but simply a reevaluation of our political system when it comes to firearms? I believe that it is really quite simple. I think that if we place higher restrictions on firearm consumption in the US, there will be less violence and less school shootings.
According to The FBI's Crime in the United States, 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms. Think about the difference it could make if there were less guns on the street, would it mean less murder? It would make sense, wouldn’t it? Since a majority of murders are done with guns, less guns equals less murder. Now, of course some of the killers would still obtain guns, and other would simply find other ways to kill, but I think the general trend will definitely be in the direction of less murder. Also, is there any real use in arguing just how many murders will be prevented? Tighter gun control will prevent murder. Maybe a lot, maybe a little, but isn’t it worth it? Lives are lives after all, and I do genuinely believe that it will make a big difference in the number of murders. A lot of murders are spur of the moment occurrences, and a gun is perfect for just such an occasion. However, if a gun wasn’t readily at hand, would the moment pass before the murder occurred?
Murdering someone with a firearm is by far the easiest and safest way (for the murderer at least) to go about it. All you have to do is apply a tiny bit of force to a trigger. It’s as easy as pushing the button on a remote or waving, physically at least. I’m sure mentally it’s a lot more taxing and difficult, for most normal people anyway. I believe that if there are fewer guns, there will be less murders, mainly because most other forms of murder are exponentially more difficult. I won’t go into detail about all the different forms of murder, but I’m sure if you think about it you’ll find them all much more difficult then shooting a gun. I also think that as mentally difficult it is to shoot someone; it will be even more difficult to murder them in some other way.
Many people might say that it is their second amendment right to bear arms. However, with the technological advances in guns, shouldn’t that right be limited? Some might say that if this is done, it will start a landslide, and other rights will be infringed upon. However, I do not believe that this will happen. This issue is different, it directly relates to our safety, not as a nation, and not from outside threats, but from each other. Others may say that they use guns for recreational purposes such as hunting, not to kill anybody, but then how does that account for the existence of handguns? No one uses a handgun to hunt; its only real purpose is that it is easily concealable, perfect for crimes.
In conclusion, I would just like to explain that I understand where those that oppose my viewpoint on this issue are coming from, and I do not wish to infringe on anybody’s rights. Guns can be very useful for recreational purposes, but we have got to keep things in perspective. We are talking about lives here, lives that are ending because we are deliberating whether or not we have the right to take someone’s past time away. Honestly, I really can’t see why this is such a heated issue, since it’s abundantly clear to me. Fewer guns equals less murder. That should be enough.


bibliography:
http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun990420.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm