For those who think that if guns are banned or further regulated these tragedies will end, consider this: 1) Prior to the 1980’s, in spite of the fact that most people had guns and there were very few gun laws, events such as Sandy Creek almost never occurred.
From the Wikipedia reference at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings_in_the_United_States, “There are very seldom reports of mass or multiple school shootings during the first three decades of the 20th Century, with the three most violent attacks on schools involving either arson or explosions.”
The first mass school shooting occurred in 1966 at the University of Texas. The next one was at the end of 1974. Between 1974 and the early 1990s, more incidents began to occur but were still quite rare.
Beginning in 1995 multiple-victim school shootings began to become more frequent, and the introduction of gun control laws increased. But the shootings continued. The main question should be “why?”
2) In spite of gun control laws and “gun-free zones” such as schools, these events happen today with distressing regularity. If 1 and 2 are demonstrably true, we need to ask another question: What is different? What has changed in the last 20-30 years that has caused this violence to increase?
One thing that is different is that with news being instantly available, more people are aware of the media attention that such events get, similar to the increase in airplane hijackings in the 1970s. Desensitization via graphic violence in movies and video games may also play a role. These could be contributing elements to the increase, but I firmly believe this is what is really different (please watch it all):
The vast majority of Americans who own guns would never use them in violence except in self-defense of themselves and their families. The guns themselves pose no danger. No gun ever woke up one morning and decided to kill someone. It may sound trite by now, but it’s true: guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
The second amendment to the U.S. constitution is not only about sportsmen or well-regulated state militia. The amendment refers to the individual. The individual’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If it was only about militia, the amendment would have clearly been a group, militia right. It is not, and the Supreme court has clearly said so in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570.
The court was affirming what was not even questioned by the founding fathers.
“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334
The founders also were not only concerned about self-defense. They also insisted on the individual right to keep and bear arms to ward off tyranny. An armed citizenry is not easily subdued by despotism. An armed country is a free country:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
It can convincingly be argued that the second amendment is necessary to uphold all the others. A stable, non-medicated person who owns a gun is a citizen. A stable, non-medicated person who has his gun taken away is a subject. Or worse, a potential victim, of both the criminal and the state.
Keeping a level head in discussing gun control is a difficult thing to do. Emotion jumps in quickly, especially in the aftermath of incidents such as Sandy Hook. But we would be much better off going after the real problem rather than going after an inanimate object that if taken away, everything else remaining the same would be replaced with something else, and our self-defense and the defense of our liberties would be irretrievably gone.
