Think of Something New, It’s Been Done Before

So it begins again . . .

Just in case you've been living under a rock and by chance haven't heard, this past week an ex-graduate student walked into a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University, and began shooting. Many victims later, he turned his weapons on himself and took his own life - something, really, he should have done before he opened fire on the other students, thus saving the rest of us a lot of aggravation.

I'm not meaning to make light of this; death is a tragedy, whenever and however it strikes. But just when did it become a competition to see how many others you could take along with you? And the news has already forgotten about this, moving on to the next story that bleeds . . .

For the moment, at least. Now I'm just waiting for all the calls to ban firearms to resurface. Because, you know, there's really no such thing as either personal responsibikity or personal accountability any more. Firearms are the problem, not people; take away the weapons, and everything will be just hunky-dory, right?

Um, well, no. Look, there's nothing you can do with a pistol, shotgun or rifle that you can't do with, say, an ice-pick. It's just a lot messier to use the ice-pick. If one individual is going to kill another individual, they're going to do it whether they have a firearm or not. And, judging by the numbers of people killed by knives, baseball bats, lead pipes and any other kind of weapon you can think of, the availability or lack thereof of firearms doesn't seem to be slowing anyone down. But I don't see any calls to ban baseball bats . . . or ice-picks. Yet people wind up just as dead.

Both sides of the gun-control issue really need to just shut up for a moment, take a deep breath, and then start talking to each other rather than at each other. The "anti-gun" folks need to realize that there was a reason the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Constitution. Quite apart from wantng a large pool of manpower familiar with firearms in the case of invasion, the Second Amendment was included as a protection against the Federal Government turning into a tyranny. After all, the Government is far less likely to try and oppress the people if those people are armed than if they aren't.

On the other hand, the "pro-gun" folks need to realize that the Second Amendment is not a blanket permission to turn yourself into a one-man army. You know, I think the M4 carbine is a neat weapon, and I have one that I use for target shooting at the range. But if I hear one more person say they need an M4, or an AK-47, for deer hunting, I'm going to slap someone. As far as I'm aware, the deer don't shoot back. Nor am I particularly interested in the argument that is often advanced that the Swiss, for example, require all males between 18 and 50 to have an automatic weapon in their home, yet they somehow manage to avoid turning their country into a shooting gallery. Yes, they do indeed do that . . . because every male between the ages of 18 and 50 in Switzerland is subject to being called out for military service if necessary. There is a difference.

Firearms really aren't the problem. We are the problem, and the way in which we regulate firearms is the problem. I really don't have a problem if you want to own a firearm. Go right ahead. But I do believe that if you have any kind of criminal record or history of psychological problems, you should be barred from that ownership. I do believe that not only should your weapon be registered with the authorities, you should not be permitted to buy any ammunition for it until you have completed a firearms safety course that teaches you not only how to shoot, but how to safely handle and store the weapon. I do believe that in order to keep the weapon, you should have to renew your FOIA card on a periodic basis, just like you have to renew your driver's license. I do believe that if you violate any of the licensing requirements, your FOIA card should be revoked and any firearms you own be immediately taken away.

But we all have to realize that firearms are a means to an end; it's the individual pulling the trigger who bears the responsibility for that act. I have yet to run across a firearm that just up and decided to kill someone all on its own. The disaffected, the unstable, and the hopeless, if they really mean to exterminate themselves and others, will find a way to do that, whether or not they have a firearm. It's up to the rest of us to recognize the people on the edge, and to take appropriate action. In other words, yes, you are your brother's keeper; that's one of the reasons why we form societies, for the benefit and protection of each other.

The man who walked into that lecture hall at NIU and opened fire didn't just come out of nowhere. Someone, somewhere, noticed a change in his behaviour, that something just wasn't right. "If" is a slippery thing to debate, but had someone intervened, the incident may never have happened. We've got to do better at this, folks.