5-24-07, 9:16 am
“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” so declares the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which constitutes the basis of gun policy in this country. If this was justified a couple of centuries ago, is it still today?
Weeks after the Virginia Tech massacre the country is still in shock about the heinous act committed by Cho Seung Hui. Questions are still arising but not as many answers, I would say appropriate answers, are forth coming. Among the many questions asked is the one as to whether or not it's time to introduce more severe gun control or to simply repeal the second amendment to the constitution with regard to the right to bear firearms. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the forefront advocate of the right to bear and keep firearms affirms that the Virginia Tech massacre underscores the importance of the second amendment right. Indeed, Alan Gottlieb, founder of SAF, hypothesizes that if there had been an armed student or teacher, maybe Cho would have been stopped at some point during his rampage. He is probably right, but who could affirm that Cho would have killed the same number of people if he was deprived of the right to buy guns in the first place. Even if, as pretend Cal, he could have resorted to ideas like making a bomb in order to blow himself as jihads in the Middle East, we should all acknowledge that in this country people don't make bombs as easily as they buy guns on the internet. Such an activity cannot go undetected before getting to the point of destruction. As we can see, Cho could have had the same anger, the same hatred and the same psychopath mind but he wouldn't have done such a massacre if he did not have a gun. SAF and its sympathizing followers justify the right to bear firearms by alleging self defense. However, if there was no gun in the attacker's hand, why would one need a gun to defend him against other types of attack. Also, statistically how many people, have been killed in self defense by comparison to those killed in several kinds of attack? Since we never know where the attacker would come from and where or when he would strike, should not anybody at any time be carrying a gun, just like we carry cell phones today, in order to justify the idea of self defense? In this way we would be returned to the ages of the far west where the quickest shooter had the right to kill. However, in a society like the one we live in, according to Alan Gottlieb, how many people like Cho are out there undetected and free of any suspicion? America is probably the most stressing society in the world; this combined with the infrequency of voluntary psychiatric consultations, the fact of putting a firearm in everyone hand to justify self defense, might result in arming potential killers.
Indeed, in many cases, violence is linked to a deranged state of mind of the person causing it. A simple background check in order to determine whether or not an individual is responsible enough to be allowed to acquire a firearm is not enough. As a matter of fact, no one can predict when dementia might strike someone's mind. In a country where people are deceived every single day, due to so many unpredictable occurrences: loss of job, investments, love, or properties, one can go from a psychologically stable mind to a deranged one, susceptible of becoming a threat to others in a matter of days. And not everyone gives warning signals as in the case of Cho, but whenever dementia strikes, one could have only the weapon in his possession to harm the society. Situations like this make me think back to my younger years in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the country where I was born. I used to see many such psychically deranged persons throwing stones at anybody passing on the road. This means that if they had guns, they would have been shooting peoples instead of throwing stones.
Very recently, the world had heard of another shooting that occurred at the Johnson Space Center in Houston Texas, involving two engineers. As in the case of Virginia Tech, the shooter killed himself after killing his colleague, but at least sparing the life of another female hostage. Prior to the incident, the engineer shooter was a valuable member of the American society working on important projects regarding space ships. Now he had shown up as a mentally deranged person because of his actions. Who could have imagined him doing what he did; he certainly did not have any criminal background and he had purchased the gun he used in the killing only a month before. Unless guns were prohibited, no one could have refused him the purchasing of that gun.
Since there are already so many firearms on the streets and in homes in America, the question becomes how to get rid of them, should the second amendment be repealed. It's certainly going to be very difficult, even impossible to some extent, but it is worth to try. Just as it is with the illegal drug issue, a permanent and aggressive policy should prove effective. Of course, this kind of policy cannot be conceived without implicating the gun lobbying movements and associations such as SAF, gun makers and dealers. A study of recycling them into other types of business could be envisaged so as not to cause them financial stress. But it is hard to expect cooperation from gun lobbyists, makers or dealers and including the politicians who benefit from them.
The change in lifestyle for the majority of the population will certainly not occur tomorrow; however psychopaths like Cho and many others susceptible of harming others will always arise. This is why we think that stronger gun laws by themselves are not the answer to such a problem, but a combination of policies implicated at the same time is necessary to efficiently address violence in America. After Colombine High School, eight years ago and now Virginia Tech, let us not wait any longer. It is the responsibility of any civilized government to protect life and properties of its citizens by providing them a peaceful living environment; not for citizens to protect and eventually defend themselves. It is time to make this country a safer place to live for everyone, not only those enjoying private security services and infrastructures.
--Jeff Mukadi is author of “The Black Oyabun - Destiny of a Lost Child”, coming soon to print from American Book Publishing.
