The Sandy Hook school massacre hit me hard. It seems to have hit everyone pretty hard. So many innocent children lost at once, so suddenly and randomly…the pointlessness of it, the sense of helplessness…it’s tough to deal with.
I think of the parents who lost their children — the kids who walked out the door on an ordinary day, never to return — and I don’t want to let my kids go. Not to school, not anywhere. I want to keep them here, safe with me. Yet we can’t opt out of life. They have to go to school, I have to go to work, and we have to do all the mundane things as usual, even though none of it feels usual anymore.
I’m afraid for my kids. I’m afraid of what’s happening to the human race. Guns aren’t a new thing — the ability to grab a “high capacity” firearm and go on a killing spree has existed for nearly 150 years — so why is it that now we spawn so many who purposefully target the most innocent and vulnerable, and see random killing and high body counts as a ticket to fame and glory? (As for fame, or infamy at least, the media makes damn sure these psychos get their share.) I don’t know how long a society can go on like this before everything unravels.
Meanwhile the loudest public voices…the ones that are pushing government to do something…they’re nearly all pushing for the wrong thing. It’s starting to look like fear and moral panic will win the day.
So for the first time ever, I decided I had to write my congressional representatives. If they’re going to do something, someone needs to remind them what the right thing is.
Here’s what I’m telling them. I hope you’ll tell your representatives the same thing. Even if you think I’m wrong, at least think about it.
——————————
Dear Representative,
In the wake of the Sandy Hook school massacre, calls are being made for stricter gun control. As a parent of young children, I share the grief and horror that all parents feel in the wake of an act so unfathomably evil. I’m worried about the future and I want to ensure my children’s safety.
That’s why, as a voter in your state, I’m asking you to vote against any new gun control legislation.
National media figures and anti-gun groups alike are playing on public fear, saying that restricting guns and gun owners will prevent more deaths. They are wrong. They’re also saying that so-called assault rifles are too deadly to have any sporting purpose, too dangerous to use for self-defense, and are made for the sole purpose of indiscriminate killing. This too is wrong.
I’ve heard some pundits say the Second Amendment is an anachronism that doesn’t apply in light of modern technology. Technology has changed the way Americans exercise their First Amendment rights even more than the Second, yet no one would seriously propose that the framers of the Constitution intended freedom of speech, assembly, and religion to apply only as long as the people used 18th century technology.
The so-called assault weapons under consideration are technologically advanced firearms. They’re modular, made to be adapted to different calibers and uses without complex tools. The AR-15 and similar rifles (including the Bushmaster model the madman used in Newtown) may look like military rifles, but they aren’t machine guns or automatic weapons; they fire one bullet with one pull of the trigger, just like everything else in the civilian firearm market. They’re also highly accurate and precise, suitable for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense.
In short, they’re not “assault weapons,” they’re utility rifles. The fact that a madman used one doesn’t change their nature or their purpose. They’re designed to do the same kinds of things that rifles — from muskets and Kentucky flintlocks to lever-action cowboy rifles and bolt-action rifles — have always done. I don’t own or plan to buy one, but I know there’s good reason why AR-style utility rifles are currently the most popular type of rifle in America.
Furthermore, firearms of all types are vital tools of self-defense. For every madman that perpetrates a mass killing like those at Aurora or Sandy Hook, there are thousands — perhaps millions — of peaceful people who are alive and whole because they were able to defend themselves with a gun. The best research available puts the total number of defensive gun uses at somewhere between 1.4 million and 2.5 million per year.[1]
If only 1% of those 1.4 million uses prevented a murder, that’s 14,000 lives saved — children among them.
This is why we need to defend our schools instead of leaving them defenseless.
Connecticut’s already restrictive gun laws didn’t prevent this madman from finding a rifle. Laws against bringing guns into schools didn’t prevent him from using it against the children in Sandy Hook school. Nor will new restrictions — whether on “assault weapons” or high-capacity magazines — prevent the next fame-seeking lunatic from finding a gun somewhere (any gun), invading another school (or any gun-free zone), and shooting as many helpless victims as he pleases.
Far from making schools safe, such laws only guarantee that anyone deranged enough to kill children will find no opposition.
The one thing that always stops these mass shooting incidents is armed resistance—and the perpetrator usually surrenders or suicides without even firing at the armed responders.[2] Allowing every willing adult in the school to get safety/proficiency certification and discreetly carry a gun could save many lives. We already know teachers are willing to sacrifice their lives for the children in their care. Condemning them to helpless martyrdom is an outrage.
Many teachers would embrace the opportunity to actively defend themselves and their students — our children. We should at least allow them the chance.
Passing restrictive gun laws now, in a country that already has 100 million-plus gun owners and 300 million-plus firearms, would only punish millions of peaceful people for the actions of a handful of isolated lunatics.
Please oppose the gun control legislation that’s being introduced now. Instead, recognize the fundamental right of all people to act in their own self-defense—as guaranteed by the Second Amendment—and support legislation that expands our ability to protect our schools and our children.
Thanks for listening.
[1] Kleck, Gary and Marc Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: the Prevalence and Nature of Self-defense with a Gun,” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 86(1):150-187 (1995). This is the most widely accepted estimate of defensive gun use numbers. A summary of Kleck’s scholarship on guns and violence, as well as a list of publications, can be found at http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php. Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, in “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,” National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, (May 1997), discuss the differing estimates and disagree with Kleck and Gertz, saying 108,000 per year is a more likely number. Even with that low number, lives saved by defensive uses certainly outnumber lives taken by deranged spree killers. The balance tips even further in favor of guns as defensive tools when factoring in other violent crimes that were stopped.
[2] Farago, Robert, “Question of the Day: Do Magazine Capacity Limits Limit Lethality?” The Truth About Guns (December 2012). Source: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/robert-farago/question-of-the-day-do-magazine-capacity-limits-limit-lethality/. For an example of defensive gun use preventing a mass murder—coincidentally the same week as the Sandy Hook school shooting—see “Clackamas Mall Shooter Faced Man with Concealed Weapon,” KGW News Channel 8, Portland. Source: http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html.
A very well written letter. I have never bothered to look much into gun control until the Sandy Hook massacre. I’ve learned a lot the past few days (mainly from a great post by Larry Correia, who I have met), and have arrived at the same conclusion as you. I was happy to learn that in Utah, teachers are allowed to carry guns, and there are a number of them who have the ability to protect their students right now.
Thanks.
And of course you agree with me! We’re both brilliant, so it was inevitable. :) I checked out Correia’s article–he really knows his stuff. I’m going to have to read some of his books…you told me about him a while ago, but I never followed up… How did you meet him? Is he as large and studly as his pictures make him look? (Heh.)
I met Correia at a writing conference (LTUE) here in Utah. He’s a really nice guy, and his books are a lot of fun. And yes, he’s just as large and studly as his pictures make him look. (Sorry it took me so long to answer your question. I watch for new posts but forget to check the comments sometimes.)
A couple of things to add to the mix…
Here’s Larry Correia’s article on gun control: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/. As Ben says, very good information. This guy really knows what he’s talking about.
Another source I came across right after posting. This article, from the Harvard Journal of Law and Policy, shows less guns do NOT equal less crime (nor do more guns equal more crime): http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf. It’s a long article, but you can get the gist from skipping straight to the charts.
Very well written, Ing. I am so impressed. I find it interesting that so many things are included in the national media concerning this issue. For example, 3 days later there was a shooting in San Antonio, TX where a gun chased someone from a diner into a crowded theater (seems to me that alone would cause national media to go crazy) where he was stopped by an off duty deputy that shot (and wounded) him. Not a peep on the national news because it proves that good people with guns can stop bad people with guns. The officer was awarded the medal of valor on 12/19/12 for her actions. Of course that goes against the anti-gun mentality now, so it’s not surprising. If you google San Antion Theater Shooting, you’ll see lots of news articles for it. Anyway, very well said.
Thanks. Yeah, it’s amazing how much evidence there is out there buried in local news reports when you look for it (not to mention the scientific studies, FBI crime stats, and the CDC)
I had dozens of incidents to choose from. The San Antonio theater would have been a good one too, but I picked the Oregon mall shooting because it was so close to the date of Sandy Hook and because it wasn’t even an off-duty officer, but just an average young guy with a carry permit who stopped it (and without firing a shot, too, which helps undermine the trigger-happy vigilante tag concealed=carriers always get hit with).
But you’ll never hear about prevented shootings in the national media because they just don’t sell.
Even if there wasn’t already a pervasive bias against guns and gun owners in mainstream media, the amount of money they make from selling the guns=tragedy storyline would ensure that no one ever got an accurate picture from the news. You don’t glue the public’s eyeballs to your channel by saying, “Good news! An alert citizen with a concealed pistol permit drew his weapon, didn’t fire a shot, and nothing horrible happened.”
I meant aren’t included, aren’t included. Geeze, I need to get more sleep. :)
I’m late to the comment party of course :) I was just looking at hosting accounts and saw your domain, and thought I’d pay your blog a visit. Anyway, great post. Bum, you definitely have a way with words and persuasive writing. One thing that would make your opinion on guns even better is mentioning you are not the typical gun-wielding right-winger but instead, a Democrat :) (…unless you’ve switched sides recently).
After the Sandy Hook disaster, I thought about a lot of things and read a lot of commentary and opinions (not by active choice, really; you can’t avoid it). I settled on one thing that would help me feel better sending my kids to school: if there was someone there with quick access to a (secured) firearm and was trained to use it. No need to spend money on a a full-time police officer or guard. Just someone, a volunteer – maybe a janitor – it doesn’t matter – trained to help circumvent an outright disaster simply due to the fact that they have access to a weapon and have had adequate practice in handling it. Again, the purpose is entirely to prevent school massacres like Sandy Hook, not to train people in Navy Seal tactics or law enforcement. Law enforcement comes 10 – 20 minute later. There should be a “designated person” in every mall, every theater, every church, etc. Stopping or distracting the killer after just a few minutes, instead of 20 minutes is an incalculable difference. Of course as I write this, it all sounds a bit harsh and maybe uncivilized, but it’s really the only sane solution for the USA; because of the Second Amendment, and the nature of criminals, guns can never be completely eliminated from society. All we’ve done with gun-free zones is create the perfect target for mass killings. Bottom line: I want to know someone at school can protect our kids from raving lunatics with guns, period.
The second thing I really believe would make a huge difference is passing a law that prohibits the publication of the name or photo of any mass shooter. Share the incident and general description, sure, but not the name or a photo. Again, this is just for mass public shootings. I think everyone has sort of passed this idea over and doesn’t give it enough credit. There is a huge motivation for most of these mass shooters to make a name for themselves. It’s the only thing they feel they have any control over, the only way society or peers will listen to them. Take away notoriety, and they’re left with nothing. They get absolutely zero glory because they are unknown.
Both of these ideas of course will probably be ignored in favor of things that won’t really help, like more gun control.
Exactly. All of this is spot-on. Well, I there are a couple of things I can pick on…. :)
Compared to the usual right-wing Republican gun nut, I guess I am a Democrat. But compared to the usual anti-gun libtard, I’m no liberal Democrat, either. During election season my kids asked which party I vote for, and I told them I’m an Independepublicrat. I’ll consider all of them and vote for the best candidate. It’s true that I usually end up voting D, but I’m not a party-line guy; between national and state elections, I actually went about 60/40 (Dem/Rep) this year.
With all this gun control nonsense, I’m seriously thinking about never voting for a Democrat ever again. At some point the party’s platform does matter, and gun control will always be a plank in theirs. I’m absolutely disgusted with them right now. They’re dancing on the graves of children, exploiting a tragedy to ram through “solutions” that strip away Constitutional rights and will do nothing at all to prevent some scumbag from doing the same thing again in a different way. Some idiot here in WA (a Seattle-metro legislator, go figure) has proposed legislation that would remove our Castle Doctrine legislation and impose a “duty to flee,” which would make it illegal to fight back against an intruder in your own home. Right-wing conservatives call the liberals “libtards,” and though I hate that kind of label, I have to agree they richly deserve the name right now.
Only thing is, if you take your Constitutional rights seriously, you can’t really support the Republicans either. After all, they perpetrated the Patriot Act, which is still being used to invade our privacy, search without warrants, and generally deprive Americans of due process (with the other party’s complicity, but still…). I guess I could become one of those Libertarian lunatics, but I’m not sure I’m crazy enough to dance to Ron Paul’s tune.
As for schools being protected by armed people, you live in one of only two or three states that are actually getting it right. Utah has allowed the exact sort of thing that you and I want for a decade already.
Licensed concealed pistol carriers can carry on school grounds, so on any given day when the parents are all there picking up their kids, there are probably at least a couple of armed parents (but you won’t know it, because…concealed). I’m not sure if they have to get permission from the superintendent or principal first, but teachers and school employees can carry concealed pistols if they have a state permit. And people like Larry Correia (linked above) teach classes specifically tailored to educators, so they’re prepared for everyday safety and can respond effectively in an emergency. I don’t know how many schools actually have armed protection, but it’s probably worth asking, and urging yours to get with the program if they’re not already. I think you might even know a good person to ask. :)
The whole media circus that surrounds all these mass shootings is definitely a problem. If you ask me, it might just be THE problem. (Well, aside from the fact that the perpetrators are sick people that have lost all sense of humanity…but that’s a different can of worms.) Far better if these people became nameless and ignored. If guns cause mass shootings, then sensationalist media does, too. (Actually, neither of them *cause* the shootings, they’re just secondary factors in the events; but you knew that.)
But you can’t make laws to stop the media from doing their thing, because repugnant as it is, the celebrity news machine is protected by the First Amendment. Imagine the uproar if we tried restricting TV, newspapers, and the internet the same way as guns. If the Second Amendment was treated like the First, we’d all have personal grenade launchers, .50-cal machine guns on our SUV’s (I want one!), and even nukes for those with real money.
Okay, rant over. Thanks for reading, and thanks for the thoughtful comment.