Posted by
Steve Maloney on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:33:12 AM
"Yesterday morning, as news was breaking about the carnage at Virginia Tech, a reader e-mailed me a news story from last January. State legislators in Virginia had attempted to pass a bill that would have eased handgun restrictions on college campuses. Opposed by outspoken, anti-gun activists and Virginia Tech administrators, that bill failed. Is it too early to ask: 'What if?' What if that bill had passed? What if just one student in one of those classrooms had been in lawful possession of a concealed weapon for the purpose of self-defense?" (Michelle Michelle, "Why Not a Culture of Self-Defense?," Townhall, April 18, 2007)
I have been a life-long supporter of Second Amendment Rights. I believe in a "well-regulated milita" as that Amendment affirms. I also believe in a well-regulated society, the ACLU notwithstanding. The kind of thing that happend at Virginia Tech is extraordinary in its magnitude, but almost ordinary in its nature -- another a school shooting, like the one the University of Texas in 1966, Columbine, the Amish school, and many other instances.
Let's be brutally honest about Michelle's what-if question about some student "in one of those classrooms" having a concealed weapon? However, what if that "one student" in a class -- say the German class in Norris Hall -- had been Mr. Cho (the shooter)? And what if he had taken out that concealed weapon and went about mowing down the teacher and his fellow students? And what if he had been wearing body armor (Kevlar vest) and a fellow gun-toting student couldn't bring him down? These aren't exactly fanciful questions are they?
The problem, my conservative friends, is that we live in a society where there is much too much violence, much of it gun-related. We can't eliminate such violence, but surely we can reduce its incidence. We Americans kill one another in much greater numbers than is the case in other countries. That is a fact, and it is a fact we have to do something about.
Yes, we can and should debate philosophical and political issues. Yet we shouldn't mistake debate for effective action. Specifically, it's essential that MY civil liberties -- and yours -- should not result in endangering the lives of other people. Let's remember that Mr. Cho was, up until the time he started the massacre, exercising his "Second Amendment rights." Should Mr. Cho have had such rights, given who and what he was?
Somehow I don't think the proper response to the grieving families and friends at Virginia Tech is to shot slogans at them. Somehow the tough issues involved in this horrible situation don't lend themselves to witty words on bumper stickers. Let's examine carefully what approaches work -- in various state and countries -- and then act on what precise steps can reduce gun violence. Let's base on arguments on facts.
The problems our society faces are more fundamental even than gun rights. The other night on MSNBC a woman (Patricia) who was a former FBI profiler uttered some sobering truths about the world in which we live. She said we were throwing our children (and ourselves) into moral quicksand. Her point was that there was too much violence on television, on video games, in rap music, in the drug culture, and in the streets of our cities. At the same time, people like those at ACLU were saying something aburd: that culture has no real influence on behavior. That is nonsense, she said. What's going on around us is a major determinant of who we are and what we do.
The profiler's point was that we throw our children into this quicksand -- or, if you prefer, this sewer -- and then we say: "Hey, I hope that somehow -- some way -- things work out okay and your turn out to be a good, moral person. Good luck!" No, she wasn't blaming the short, unhappy life of Mr. Cho on the "culture." But she was using common sense to say that the culture certainly didn't help in the creation of a Monster.
The question is: do we want to think seriously about such issues, or not? Do we want to make some hard decisions about what's permissible -- and what's not? Or have we reached that terrible situation described by Dostoevsky where, since God is presumed to dead and thus "everything is permitted." In fact, if everything is permitted -- and what exactly is NOT permitted? -- then everyone is in danger. And when everyone is in danger, society is in peril.
Stephen R. Maloney