What could possibly go wrong? In the aftermath of yet another gun shooting many people (myself included) have called for more control on guns. However other people have drawn the opposite conclusion. They believe that the problem isn’t too much guns but not enough guns. They believe that if the victims had been armed then the shooting would have been prevented. I thought this idea was too daft to give any mention to in my last post but a lot of people (if you don’t believe me check the politics tag) seem to believe that the solution to a gun problem is more guns.
Why is it insane to fight fire with fire? Because it will make the problem worse and a lot of innocent people will get burnt. If everyone carried guns then the murder rate would skyrocket. The number of accidental shootings would be unimaginable. We would end up with a more dangerous and lethal world. Before anyone says law abiding citizens have a right to guns, remember that the day before most public massacres, the shooter was a law abiding citizen with a legally bought gun.
What gun advocates forget is that victims rarely gave time to get their gun. So even if you are armed the assailant can pounce before you have time to react. This is especially the case if the gun is safely locked away. The attacker always has the initiative and the first move. If they know the teacher is armed then they will make sure to strike before the teacher has time to react. In fact arming teachers could make it more dangerous for them as they are threats to the attacker. By arming them you are putting their life in danger.
There is the very obvious point that a gunfight in a classroom is never going to end well. Even trained policemen miss their targets (as the shooting in Time Square shows), so untrained civilians firing a gun in a panicked state are almost certainly going to miss. School shooters will simply adapt. If they know teachers are armed then they will wear bullet proof vests and bigger guns.
Gun advocates fail to see how dangerous having guns in the classroom are. If they are left near at hand then there is a chance that some students might find them. Children aren’t aware of the dangerous of life and might just play around like they do on TV. Even if there is only the slightest chance of this happening, in a country as large as America with the number of teachers it has, this means deaths that far outweigh those at Newtown, Connecticut.
If every single teacher was given a gun, I guarantee you that at least one of them would go on a school shooting themselves. Teachers should from mental health problems as much as the rest of us. If anything there are probably under more stress than most people. I know many teachers who were furious and despairing with our class in school. I saw two teachers break down in tears. There is a chance that one day one might be so fed up with their students, so angry and frustrated with them that they snap and take out a gun.
After Virginia Tech and Columbine there were calls that students should be armed. I cannot imagine a worse recipe for disaster and mass killing. Imagine you’re a high school student who gets bullied, so one day you use your gun to threaten your bullies. They’re not going to let you get away with that, so the next day they come to school with guns. The schools locker room gets turned into the OK Corral. Instead of fighting with fists, students would fight with guns. Are you telling me this is a better situation? What about all the depressed students who are angry at the world. What if instead of listening to punk music they had guns? What if they could easily steal them from their parents or teachers?
When I went to school there was a division between people who came from separate towns. We wouldn’t talk to the other crowd and we would often fight them. Imagine if we had guns? It is sheer lunacy to think that giving guns to people not yet capable of rational thought will not end badly. There have been days I have been furious and full of hate with some people, even my friends. I calmed down and got over it. Now what if I had a gun or could easily get one? Teenage years aren’t easy for everyone one. Imagine if all those depressed teens with stray suicidal thoughts had the ability to act upon their thoughts?
Think of all the accidental shootings. Guns are delicate; if they are hit hard there is a chance they will fire. So imagine if I am running and fall on my face. There is a chance the gun on my chest could fire. Sure it is a slight chance, but when you multiply by the number of Americans there and all times we slip and fall, there are thousands of shootings right there.
Most shootings are not committed by the insane or by drug dealers. Most murders are committed by people who got mad. Most of the time it is an argument that escalated. The main factor is whether or not weapons are present and what kind of weapon. If everyone has a gun, then every argument has the risk of turning violent. Can you imagine how furious you got during all those drunken rows that seemed important at the time but look stupid now? What if every drunken idiot had a gun? How could that end in anything other than mass deaths?
It is argued that criminals will always get guns no matter what the law is. This completely misses the point. The aim of the government should be to make this as hard as possible. In Europe guns are extremely tightly controlled and armed criminals don’t run riot. In fact they find it difficult to get guns and have to use other weapons. As a result, the murder and violent crime rate is far lower. There is the equally poor argument that if mass killers didn’t use guns they would use bombs. Again, this is not a reason to give up and go home. Do you know how to make a bomb? Most people haven’t the slightest clue. While it is possible to look it up, it is a difficult and dangerous project and you run a serious risk of blowing yourself up. Whereas guns are so simple a child could fire them.
It is particularly absurd to argue that the children aged under 10 should have been armed or that the shooting in Aurora could have been prevented by more guns. In this case a man opened fire on a cinema wearing a bulletproof vest. If all the cinema goers were armed it would have been mass slaughter far worse. First of all it was dark so accuracy would have been poor and bystanders would have been hit. Second of all, there would have been confusion and panic which would have also meant poor accuracy. Third of all, the cinema goers would not have known who was the shooter and who were the victims defending themselves and would have ended up attacking each other. Finally, it would have been hard to shoot someone in the dark and harder still as the shooter was heavily protected. The idea more guns could have led to less deaths is sheer lunacy.
Gun advocates seem to think they are living in a Western movie where there is a clear line between goodies and baddies and it is the job of the goodies to shoot the baddies. It’s a world where no one misses and no injured bystanders. This gives them the delusional idea that guns are the solution not the problem. They want to fight fire with fire and let the whole country burn.