Gun control

The VT massacre has, just as usual, brought up the usual question of gun control. Would it have been prevented if the laws were more strict? Would it have been prevented if all the kids on campus were allowed to carry concealed weapons? Would either of these have mattered at all? Just how much control is too much?

Now for my thoughts on the issue.

First, I'm going to preface this by saying I hate guns. I think they're one of the worst inventions in the history of mankind. The entire arms industry is something I absolutely despise. It sickens me to know that we have people working day and night to perfect more and efficient ways of brutally slaughtering each other rather than putting those efforts to something that can be a benefit to humanity. Such as curing cancer or AIDS, finding an alternative energy source to fossil fuels, or ending poverty. I have never once fired a gun in my life and I have absolutely no desire to do so.

Now, some of you are probably thinking, "here comes the classic 'guns should be outlawed' speech..." And if you are thinking that, you're absolutely wrong. I don't think guns should be illegal. But I do think we need to have better control over them. The entire gun control issue needs to be reformed because right now, it's not working. It varies so much from state to state and the law needs to be more universal. Some states allow concealed weapons, some allow open-carry, some don't allow you to carry any weapons. I'm not going to break it into specifics, but that's a general overview.

Cho Seung-hui purchased his guns legally. He went into gunshops and met the requirements for purchasing firearms. "So there you go, gun control laws won't stop tragedies like this." Not quite. See, Cho was mentally ill. This isn't a personal opinion, in 2005 he was declared mentally ill and "an imminent danger to himself and others" by a court. He was told to seek outpatient care which, since there have yet to be any documents to prove otherwise, he did not seek. As far as I can tell, there was never any follow-up.

This kid was declared to be an imminent danger, but the court left it up to him to seek out his own care. On a brief tangent, that's all I need to prove that there's a serious problem with health care in this country, both mental and physical. He was declared to be an imminent danger to himself and others, let that sink in. But he was not institutionalized. Nor was his case followed up on. Nobody checked to see if he was actually seeking this outpatient care. That's irresponsible and sloppy.

Now, back to the gun issue. This court ruling was a matter of public record. So Cho buys guns from a gunshop and what happens? They give him a quick, automated background check. Now, let THAT sink in -- THEY GAVE HIM A BACKGROUND CHECK! And this background check either wasn't thorough or the dealers weren't concerned about a person who was declared an imminent danger walking around with a gun.

I don't care where you stand on the gun control issue, a man who the courts have ruled is mentally ill and an imminent danger should NOT, under ANY circumstances, be allowed to obtain a weapon. Let alone more than one. Anyone who says otherwise should seek mental help for themselves.

And I know what some gun advocates are thinking. "Well, if he couldn't get the guns legally he would have just bought them off the black market." Sure, that's a possibility. But just because the black market exists, does that mean we have to make it easier for people like this to obtain weapons? That's a dangerous slope. You might as say, "well crimes will be committed anyway, so we should just get rid of law enforcement."

This wasn't a case of some quiet kid who just snapped one day. No, this was a seriously disturbed individual. Teachers noticed it, classmates noticed it, the courts noticed it. But nobody did anything. Nobody followed up on this case because the help this kid needed was not available. I'm not saying it's not his fault, what he did was definitely his fault. But it could have been prevented had there been a better system in place. When someone is declared an imminent threat to themselves and others, you don't send them off to seek out their own care and hope for the best, never bothering once to follow up on it. That's completely irresponsible.

Now, as to the argument of "well if all the kids on campus were allowed to carry concealed weapons, this wouldn't have happened." But y'know what? As an educator, the idea of a campus full of people armed with concealed weapons frightens the HELL out of me. Especially since many of the people advocating this action say nothing about proper weapons training -- as if everyone is an action hero just because they own a gun. Making it easier for people to get their hands on weapons and allowing them to carry them on campus creates the potential for innumerable tragedies. Now, if there's a report of a gunman opening fire on a campus, what happens? You've got a campus full of people who are in a panic. And that's a recipe for disaster. Not only that, but what about other altercations that may happen? What about a fight? Hell, what about a frat party?

But people don't think of these things. They've watched too many John Wayne movies and they think giving everyone a gun will just magically make all the world's problems go away. In other words, they've detached themselves so far from reality that they're unable to see the consequences of their actions.

Although I can't same I'm surprised. The people advocating this kind of action are the same people who think tax cuts and deficit spending will somehow work in the economy's favor. These are the people who tear the Constitution to shreads, with exception to the second amendment. Who continue to support an unjust war, but are unwilling to fight it themselves.