For this post i will focus mainly on the first article of the two in the New Yorker series. That's not to say that Susan Sontag's article is any less pertinent, i just had a lot more going on in my mind while reading the first one by Adam Gopnik.
Obviously this article covers a very touchy subject in our country today. Not only is that the topic of school/campus shootings, but also just gun control in general. I really liked that Gopnik pointed out one of the main reasons things like these horrible shootings happen is that many of the people we give guns to are seriously mentally ill. I also liked that he stated that the so called "heartfelt" speeches made afterword are completely unneeded. Sure they might help people cope with the things that happened a little easier, but isn't that what psychologists are for? The governors main responsibility should not be helping the people cope with what happened, but to make sure that terrible things like this never happen again.
Also, Gopnik points out that the US has done little to nothing on this front; whereas in nations across Europe, when things like this happen, new policies are immediately put into place to combat the events that lead to madmen gaining access to weapons. He points out that after a school shooting in Dunblane, British gun laws were tightened even more than before (and before they were still more strict than the current US gun laws). Since then there have been significantly less incidents including gun violence on campus. So what is his point? I think it is kind of obvious here. The US is not doing enough to prevent insane, psychopathic killers from getting their hands on guns (and i don't use the words insane and psychopathic lightly here, because if you think about it, someone who sits down and premeditates a mass killing of innocent civilians on a college campus is obviously totally screwed up in the head).
However, one thing i don't agree with him on is the total banning of handguns. If you think about it, yes the handgun does help someone easily conceal a weapon and shoot more rounds out than that of a hunting rifle. One thing he doesn't mention though, is that someone could have just as easily modified an assault rife, which can be found at most any Gander Mountain, to be fully automatic and outfitted himself with many extra magazines and done just as much if not much more damage. So i don't really agree with him that banning the firearms altogether is the answer. Make them very difficult to get, but not impossible for men with clean mental history and no intention to kill.
I agree with your tactic to solve the problem, as I think that banning handguns is simply unrealistic. I think that utilizing some system that restricts gun purchases under certain conditions or just making it difficult and tidious to purchase one will, to some effect, deter people from going on such rampages.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Barry and Geof that, as nice and helpful as it would be, banning handguns is quite unrealistic. However, I would like to point out that unless you have the intentions to wipe out a few people, why would you want to "pimp your assault rifle" to make it more lethal than a simple hunting rifle?
ReplyDeleteIt's just a thought, because although it would be a nice thought to believe that every man, woman and child is mentally sane enough to own a gun(OK maybe not the children, but it has a better ring), that is simply just not the case, and measures to screen potential gun owners for mental instability is something that should become more of a reality.