Once again, the nation's attention has been captured by a horrific act of violence. Gunfire in a high school. A teenager killing teenagers. Any family's worst nightmare. Chardon, Ohio, will never be quite the same.
Inevitably, the question on most people's minds is "Why?" What possibly could have caused 17-year-old T.J. Lane to turn a gun on his fellow students, killing three and wounding two more? There is talk of bullying. Of an abusive father. After all, he was attending a school for kids who have had trouble in traditional schools.
The "Why?" question is certainly important. If we are ever able to offer meaningful help to troubled kids, we must better understand the factors that cause teens to be so alienated and enraged that they would engage in violence. But the dominant focus on "Why?" often obscures the nature of the problem posed by tragedies like Chardon.
Let's face it. Chardon happened not because an Ohio teenager was so troubled that he became violent. Chardon happened because a troubled, violent Ohio teenager was able to get access to a gun.
Remove the gun from the equation and there may have been a violent incident involving T.J. Lane. But it is doubtful that three young people would have died and two been seriously injured. The nature and scope of the Chardon tragedy was determined by the nature and lethality of the weapon. It's not just a question of "Why?" It's also a question of "How?"
Take the gun from Seung-Hui Cho and 32 Virginia Tech students would not have died almost five years ago. Nor would 15 more have been injured. Take the guns from Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris and 13 students and teachers would not have died at Columbine High School, nor would 21 others have been injured. Give these violent individuals baseball bats or knives instead of guns and everything changes. The problem is not just the people. The problem is also the guns.
It's not just the mass killings where the gun makes the difference. In general, assaults with guns are 23 times more deadly than assaults with other weapons or bodily force. Suicide attempts with guns are far more likely to result in death than attempts using other means. Accidents with guns are more deadly than accidents with other dangerous objects.
While we are trying to figure out how a young heart could become so hardened that it would lead to an act of unspeakable violence, can we not also have sensible policies to prevent hardened and violent kids from getting access to guns? I have no doubt the gun lobby welcomes our obsession with the "Why?" question. It deflects attention from the deadly role of the guns.
I remember well the congressional debate on proposals to extend Brady background checks to all sales at gun shows in the wake of the Columbine massacre. It was undisputed that the Columbine killers exploited the "gun show loophole" to acquire their weapons. Yet the strategy of the gun control opponents was to focus the discussion entirely on the question of "Why?" They talked about the destruction of American values, the erosion of morality, violent video games, and inattentive parenting. In response, Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ) acknowledged the relevance of many such factors, but added a compelling truth: "But when all is said and done, the main culprit was the easy accessibility of guns to the children."
We are repeatedly told, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Clever, but tragically misleading. A gun enabled T.J. Lane to be an efficient and effective multiple killer.
We lost three young people in Chardon. But we lose eight young people every day to gunfire. The problem is the guns.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009)
We lose 25 young people* every day to motor vehicle accidents. So the problem is the vehicles?
*Aged 15-24
Step One is to take advantage of high profile incidents that involve guns and to use them to get media time. People make decisions when their emotions are elevated that they would not have considered at other times.
Step Two is to marginalize legal gun use and historic precedent. Police forces should be considered as sufficient without personal security measures. Incidents of the mishandling of guns create doubt about their usefulness and their safe use.
Step Three is to make some guns seem more dangerous than others. Fear could sway the support for banning of some firearms.
Step Four is to register every sale. It’s important to know who owns guns and what type for future reference.
Step Five is a “Shall Issue” permitting process. Police can then decide a person’s eligibility for a permit based on “Good Cause” which can later be legislatively defined to limit carry to those who are law enforcement with further prohibitions as opportunities arise.
The Final step is to encourage and incentivize the forfeiture of arms. If people believe that they no longer have a need for arms and that arms are dangerous to own, they will be more likely to forfeit them. Incentives could include cash or food for information about unlicensed neighbors or family members. Lastly a serious of ongoing compliance inspections based on gun and ammunition sales registration would complete the goal of a world free of gun violence.
"Step Five is a “Shall Issue” permitting process. Police can then decide a person’s eligibility for a permit based on “Good Cause” which can later be legislatively defined to limit carry to those who are law enforcement with further prohibitions as opportunities arise."
Kind of like New Jersey, huh?
This time his flawed premise ignores the fact that some 25-50% of the students that attend Chardon High school probably have relatively easy access to guns yet they've harmed no one. This simple fact disproves Denis' foolish notion that simple access to potentially deadly instruments causes tragedies.
How can anyone (with a straight face) look someone in the eye and say proliferation of guns hasn't made this a more violent society?? Guns not used for hunting game, are obviously meant to kill people. Let's see how these big shots talk when it's THEIR son or daughter taken to the morgue. For what?? Somebody's right to carry a gun IN CASE someone else is carrying a gun? Get a grip! We're sick of it!
So, according to Gallup, the "we" that is "sick of it" is a shrinking minority.
Dennis Henigan wrote Suicide attempts with guns are far more likely to result in death than attempts using other means. Accidents with guns are more deadly than accidents with other dangerous objects.
It has also been found that there is no correlation between firearms ownership and homicide and suicide rates, and many of the countries with the strictest firearms prohibitions have higher homicide and SUICIDE rates than nations without such restrictions.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Furthermore, Dennis Henigan ignores the fact that deaths from accidental gunshot wounds amount to less than two a day nationwide.
Denis Henigan also wrote, “Remove the gun from the equation and there may have been a violent incident involving T.J. Lane. But it is doubtful that three young people would have died and two been seriously injured,” “The problem is also the guns,” and “The problem is the guns.”
Here Denis Henigan is revealing the Brady Campaign’s hand. Their belief is that “Reasonable gun control” is total citizen disarmament.
And I thought the "donate $32" campaign the Bradys enacted the day after the V-tech tragedy was ignorant. This statement is pretty close. the only way you come to Dennis's conclusion is of you have an agenda. Or are in desperate need of continued funding.
Sad.
Interpreting the news and twisting it to suit are two different things! Denny engages in the latter!!!
De Oppresso Liber
Old SF