Virginia Tech and Gun Control

The Virgina Tech tragedy has brought the subject of gun control back to the front of the social debate. The fact that guns are dangerous and deadly become an undeniable truth in the wake of such a senseless loss of life. However, the issue of gun regulation goes far beyond murderous lunatics on shooting sprees.

The perpetrator of the Virginia Tech shooting was a self indulgent child throwing a temper tantrum. Like a toddler that wasn't getting his way in the world he lashed out to share his pain. Children bite, kick and squeal in obnoxious tones as they learn to regulate their outbursts. This child used nine millimeter pistols to express his tantrum. The only difference between him and an undisciplined child is the hardware he possessed and the damage he inflicted.

Guns are powerful and deadly tools: As are prescription drugs, jet planes, and automobiles. All of these things certainly have a place in our society but only guns are held in the position of constitutional protection from regulation. Depending on the skill of one lawyer or another the intention of the second amendment to the constitution can be expressed in several ways. Only one sentence long, the second amendment makes up in complexity what it lacks in length. It manages to contradict itself within the commas. The fact that we have any gun control laws at all speaks to the fact that it is well established that guns can be regulated under our system of government. However, with the phrase “shall not be infringed” boldly printed into the second amendment resistance to regulation of firearms is still very strong. Guns are a part of our history, social identity and self image. Unfortunately so is the violence that comes along with admiration for such weapons.

Guns are designed to kill things. This is their purpose and intent. In the proper hands they can be used to keep the peace, secure the borders, regulate wild populations of animals and put food on tables. What purpose is served by allowing guns into the hands of tantrum throwing children? None. No matter what the constitution says, guns in untrained, uncontrolled hands are a threat to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Aren't those goals the intent of our constitutional protections?

I am, by no means against guns as a matter of conceptual idea. Many things in this world are dangerous and to think we can get rid of them is to tilt at windmills. However, gun owners have a responsibility to themselves as well as to the public at large to insure that these tools are not used to limit the freedoms of others. Under the current laws and attitudes relating to weapons of all kinds this is currently not the case.

The only strength and power the VT shooter ever possessed was bought at the counter of a pawn shop and gun store in Virginia. Such a suicidal explosion of murderous rage is thankfully rare in our world. If it was the only example of the miss use of weapons in our country it might still present a powerful argument toward regulations of some sort. However, too many guns left in untrained hands kill innocent people needlessly everyday. People die by accident, shot often by those that love them. Domestic disputes are turned into crime scenes when a gun is introduced into an emotional struggle. Neighborhoods are turned into war zones when the use of a gun is equated with power and respect. There are plenty of reasons that gun regulation is prudent, but to tie its need solely to the events at VT is missing the larger point.

Guns are inherently dangerous. These weapons have grown in power and number to the point that they threaten our security and our social stability. It is up to gun owners, manufactures, and sellers to prove their ability to be responsible stewards of these most deadly of devices. If they can't bring themselves to secure their tools then the responsibility must shift to the government to fulfill the role of insuring our national security.