WAITE: Shootings show a need for change in gun laws
Title
WAITE: Shootings show a need for change in gun laws
Description
By: Cyndi Waite / Junior film studies major
Posted: 4/23/07
Guns kill people. People kill people. Guns help people kill people.
It's an inevitable truth that firearms in the wrong hands lead to the deaths of innocent people. As a nation, as students, we witnessed and felt the tragic deaths of 33 individuals; Virginia Tech is a forever-changed campus, cloaked in confusion and fear, anger and resentment.
Pointing fingers and placing blame does no good, but learning and moving forward in such a way that will prevent similar future tragedies is not only a good idea, but a necessary one. And in order to make positive, permanent, preventive change that will ensure not one more innocent life will be taken from mass shootings in our nation, we must address the issue of gun control.
This is not a liberal or a conservative issue. It's not a rural or urban argument. This is a conversation among Americans who value their lives and their neighbors' lives.
Gun control has become such a politically taboo subject that politicians, on both sides of the fence, avoid discussing it and refuse to make it a part of their campaigns for fear they will lose Midwestern, Southern, rural and many conservative voters.
"Cries for stricter gun-control laws by some Democratic lawmakers following the Virginia Tech mass murders have been met with caution from their party leads," William Douglas wrote in his Fort Wayne News Sentinel article "Democrats unlikely to revisit gun-control legislation."
"Other Democrats recommend steering clear of the issue because it could jeopardize their party's recent gains in pro-gun Southern and Western states," Douglas wrote.
It's still unclear as to whether or not the Bush administration plans to officially address the issue; the Chicago Tribune quoted the administration as saying, "We understand that there is going to be, and there has been, an ongoing national conversation about gun control ... We are going to be participants."
Whether those conversations happen in a few days or in a few weeks, they need to happen soon.
Regardless of what our forefathers meant by "the right to bear arms" in the Second Amendment, we live in a society where legally bearing arms has proven to be lethal. Admittedly, only a few of the many who purchase and own guns use them in inappropriate ways, but when the few engage in destructive behavior that affects the masses, they have to give up some of their rights in order to protect all of society.
Social contract theories have been around since Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau. When individuals have full autonomy, they argued, their choices are completely their own - whether those choices are negative or positive, and no matter how they affect others. In order to live in a society where we don't live in constant fear for our safety, we agree to give up some autonomy to provide social order.
Relinquishing the right to own personal firearms to ensure the safety of the society at large seems like a pretty decent compromise.
While a full ban on firearms may be outlandish and farfetched, stricter restrictions are not. Currently, gun owners have to go through a registration process that involves, among other things, submitting a record of one's mental health.
These restrictions need to be stricter, enforced to higher standards and maintained better. Only 17 states send medical information in for full background checks, reported Michael Luo of The New York Times in his article "Gun control questions raised."
Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui had a "stay in a psychiatric center under a magistrate's order" in 2005, the article reported. Virginia officials say that Seung-Hui was found to be legally eligible to purchase handguns, an immediate red flag about the inadequate gun-ownership registration policies that are currently in place.
The Bush administration and other sources keep reiterating that it's "too soon" to have these gun-control arguments, that we need to "take a deep breath" for a while before we deal with these issues.
It's not. And we can breathe while we make policy changes. Gun abuse is an issue far too serious to put on the back burner until the country calms down, until everyone heals. It's in this time of pain that we need to begin these conversations; that we need to pressure our representatives to consider changing their views.
Thirty-three lives were taken on April 16. Are we going to wait around for another mass shooting before we consider changing our policies, or are we going to step up and speak out against gun-violence and demand change?
I choose safety. I choose change. I hope you do, too.
Posted: 4/23/07
Guns kill people. People kill people. Guns help people kill people.
It's an inevitable truth that firearms in the wrong hands lead to the deaths of innocent people. As a nation, as students, we witnessed and felt the tragic deaths of 33 individuals; Virginia Tech is a forever-changed campus, cloaked in confusion and fear, anger and resentment.
Pointing fingers and placing blame does no good, but learning and moving forward in such a way that will prevent similar future tragedies is not only a good idea, but a necessary one. And in order to make positive, permanent, preventive change that will ensure not one more innocent life will be taken from mass shootings in our nation, we must address the issue of gun control.
This is not a liberal or a conservative issue. It's not a rural or urban argument. This is a conversation among Americans who value their lives and their neighbors' lives.
Gun control has become such a politically taboo subject that politicians, on both sides of the fence, avoid discussing it and refuse to make it a part of their campaigns for fear they will lose Midwestern, Southern, rural and many conservative voters.
"Cries for stricter gun-control laws by some Democratic lawmakers following the Virginia Tech mass murders have been met with caution from their party leads," William Douglas wrote in his Fort Wayne News Sentinel article "Democrats unlikely to revisit gun-control legislation."
"Other Democrats recommend steering clear of the issue because it could jeopardize their party's recent gains in pro-gun Southern and Western states," Douglas wrote.
It's still unclear as to whether or not the Bush administration plans to officially address the issue; the Chicago Tribune quoted the administration as saying, "We understand that there is going to be, and there has been, an ongoing national conversation about gun control ... We are going to be participants."
Whether those conversations happen in a few days or in a few weeks, they need to happen soon.
Regardless of what our forefathers meant by "the right to bear arms" in the Second Amendment, we live in a society where legally bearing arms has proven to be lethal. Admittedly, only a few of the many who purchase and own guns use them in inappropriate ways, but when the few engage in destructive behavior that affects the masses, they have to give up some of their rights in order to protect all of society.
Social contract theories have been around since Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau. When individuals have full autonomy, they argued, their choices are completely their own - whether those choices are negative or positive, and no matter how they affect others. In order to live in a society where we don't live in constant fear for our safety, we agree to give up some autonomy to provide social order.
Relinquishing the right to own personal firearms to ensure the safety of the society at large seems like a pretty decent compromise.
While a full ban on firearms may be outlandish and farfetched, stricter restrictions are not. Currently, gun owners have to go through a registration process that involves, among other things, submitting a record of one's mental health.
These restrictions need to be stricter, enforced to higher standards and maintained better. Only 17 states send medical information in for full background checks, reported Michael Luo of The New York Times in his article "Gun control questions raised."
Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui had a "stay in a psychiatric center under a magistrate's order" in 2005, the article reported. Virginia officials say that Seung-Hui was found to be legally eligible to purchase handguns, an immediate red flag about the inadequate gun-ownership registration policies that are currently in place.
The Bush administration and other sources keep reiterating that it's "too soon" to have these gun-control arguments, that we need to "take a deep breath" for a while before we deal with these issues.
It's not. And we can breathe while we make policy changes. Gun abuse is an issue far too serious to put on the back burner until the country calms down, until everyone heals. It's in this time of pain that we need to begin these conversations; that we need to pressure our representatives to consider changing their views.
Thirty-three lives were taken on April 16. Are we going to wait around for another mass shooting before we consider changing our policies, or are we going to step up and speak out against gun-violence and demand change?
I choose safety. I choose change. I hope you do, too.
Creator
Cyndi Waite
Publisher
Daily Nebraskan
Date
2007-09-03
Contributor
Sara AA Hood
Rights
Josh Swartzlander <jdwriter19@yahoo.com>
Language
eng
Citation
Cyndi Waite, “WAITE: Shootings show a need for change in gun laws,” The April 16 Archive, accessed November 23, 2024, https://april16archive.org/index.php/items/show/1279.