“Gun Violence:” A Misleading Misnomer
I recently came across a petition that a student at my school published on Change.org. I was appalled by the proposal to “Regulate and restrict the purchase of ammunition in Massachusetts” and felt personally obligated to educate the hundreds of people who see this petition, and do not hear the other side, about what the phrase “gun violence” really means. Here is the full text of the petitioner’s letter:
“As of 2016, the United States has fallen victim to 31% of the world’s mass shooters, despite only hosting 5% of the world’s population. In recent events, this horrifying percentage has undoubtedly risen. Gun violence in America has come to be something perpetual. Children grow up seeing flags at half mast every other day. Students are taking moments of silence much too often. Tragedy hits in blows disproportionate to the rest of the modern world.
Our constitution makes us entitled to own firearms, and it is understandable how we as a country would ideally like to follow its principles. However, these shootings have proven beyond any stretch of doubt that the limits of this privilege need to be altered, no matter how difficult that may be.
Our proposal is not to ban the usage of firearms, as past events have shown us that contradicting the second amendment will likely not work. However, restricting and further regulating access to ammunition would help prevent people from acquiring the resources to commit mass shootings. It is a route that strays from the usual solution to these problems, but it seems like a compromise to people who insist on owning guns.
As Massachusetts Governor, we ask that you pioneer this change. Hopefully, your actions in Massachusetts can elucidate a peaceful path to safety and security for other states, and even prevent attacks like the most recent shooting in Las Vegas. Thank you very much, and it is our hope that you will consider this proposal.”
I often hear in the media today lines like “Gun violence in America has come to be something perpetual,” as stated by the author of this petition. What does this even mean? What is gun violence? Is it any act of violence committed with a gun? Is the means of attack more important than the motive or the reason behind it?
Whenever “Children grow up seeing flags at half mast every other day,” it is not because of guns. It is not because of conservatives. It is certainly not because of a lack of legislation. It is because some people believe in terrible things, and are personally motivated to carry out violence, by whatever means necessary, to gain attention for their cause. Take some of the more prominent mass shootings, for example: Mandalay Bay, Pulse Nightclub, San Bernardino, Charleston. Of course they were all committed with guns, but the shooters shot for a reason. They didn’t shoot because of “guns.” They shot because they were all deranged individuals who followed sick ideologies. The main crime of the Pulse nightclub and San Bernardino shootings was not “gun violence”; the crime was radical Islamic terror, and it was carried out with guns. Why should we infringe upon the Constitutional rights of all law-abiding Americans because a couple religious extremists got ahold of weapons that were already restricted or illegal?
Charleston was a white supremacist attack, not a gun attack. The motive was racism, not “guns.” The Mandalay Bay shooter was a mentally ill individual. His motive was not “guns.” In the wake of a mass shooting, it feels good and righteous to call for “common sense gun control,” and spew emotional platitudes such as how “Students are taking moments of silence much too often.” However, this is simply an irrational knee-jerk response that will not lead to any meaningful or lasting change in violence statistics. Terrorists and other attackers can kill just as effectively without guns. In Nice, France in 2016, 86 people were killed by an Islamic terrorist driving a truck through a crowd of people. No guns were involved, but the attack still happened, and just as many people died, if not more, than if a gun were to be used. A similar attack happened in our own nation this October, when an Islamic terrorist drove a truck into a crowd of people in New York City, killing eight and injuring nearly a dozen. Does this mean that we should “regulate and restrict the purchase” of car tires or gasoline? Should we ban cars all together? Who even needs a truck anyways? You can still get around in a sedan.
We need to look at the root of the problems and eliminate the cause, not just scramble desperately to fix the effects, ignoring logic and allowing emotional passion to take over. If it were somehow possible to ban all the guns in America and at the same time ensure no rise whatsoever in black market gun sales, radical Islam would still exist at the end of the day. White supremacy would still exist. These deranged people would simply find another means to carry out their violence, and the bleeding-heart activists of America would call to ban each and every “other way” until we live in a society where “freedom” is something we read about in history books instead of experience in our everyday lives.
We need to cut off these problems at the source. We need to educate people about the threats of radical Islam and white supremacy. We need to provide help, as a community, for those suffering from mental illnesses. Banning guns or restricting the sale of ammunition to achieve a similar means, feels good, and it looks good on paper when you cite that “the United States has fallen victim to 31% of the world’s mass shooters, despite only hosting 5% of the world’s population,” but it doesn’t work. It never works. In a nation like America, with the diversity we have, banning guns would do much more harm than good. It would increase organized crime activity, it would eliminate the possibility of self-defense from potential terrorist threats, and it would set rolling a snowball of disregard towards the essential freedoms contained and enumerated within the Bill of Rights.