Posted by
Tim Busovsky on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:48:56 PM
Every now and again in the course of reading news and following current events, one will find an article that has such an incredibly, indescribably silly headline, that it makes you laugh but, at the same time, shake your head in disbelief as someone sat down at a computer, carefully and logically wrote the article, submitted it to their editors, and had the article published as a respectable position. I came across one of these headlines just moments ago and felt compelled to respond to it:
Blaming Charlton Heston
With a view to Monday's deadly shooting rampage
at Virginia Tech, European newspapers are blaming the lack of gun
control measures in the United States and implying that Charlton Heston
is indirectly responsible for the scope of the killings.
Naturally, gun control advocates will use the events at Virginia Tech to their advantage. One of the arguments that I have already come across states that, had the Federal Assault Weapons Ban been renewed in 2004, the recent shootings at Virginia Tech would not have occurred. I want to address this argument first, before I begin to delve into a more philosophic discussion of gun ownership. According to several sources, including CNN, the gunman responsible for the shootings was carrying two different types of pistols; a Walther .22-caliber semi-automatic and a 9 mm Glock 19. Both weapons are semi-automatic pistols. However, they were not affected by thefr Federal Ban, because they did not meet all four requirements to ban a pistol. In short, had the ban been renewed, the incident still could have occurred, as the gunman followed all legal procedures necessary to purchase the weapons as well as the fact that the pistols were not one of 19 weapons banned by the Federal government in 1994.
With that important piece of information out of the way, it is also important to delve into more of the philosophical side of the debate regarding gun control. Guns should be legal. Besides the whole second amendment debate, owning a gun sh
ould not be illegal. By owning a gun, would it violate anyone's right to life, liberty, or property? Absolutely not. Guns, and really any weapon, are only as destructive as their owners intend for them to be. For instance, a gun owner who enjoys legal hunting purchases a large caliber rifle for the sole intention of roaming the woods in search for the perfect buck. This gun owner threatens not a single person. However, he is the one that is facing the consequences of such frivolous legislation as the Federal Assault Weapons ban, due to one primary reason; crime will always exist. Firearms did not create crime. Crime was attracted to the gun, particularly the advancements in technology which made pistols smaller, easier to control, fire at a faster rate, be extremely accurate, and carry a clip with numerous rounds in it. If guns did not exist or, in our modern, more realistic scenario, were banned, crime would still exist. Those who want to commit crimes such as murder and theft will do so with the aid of other weapons. Because an item is dangerous does not necessitate its legislation and regulation. Common household cleaners are toxic and, if ingested in plenty, fatal. However, there is no legislation on the table to ban or regulate these cleaners or kitchen knives. Why is that? Why are guns the primary target of a campaign to apparently curb violent crimes?
I don't know precisely what the reason is, but I believe that I would be safe to guess that the gun control movement is another attempt to politicize a non-political issue. The government simply has no business legislating my ability to purchase a gun. I will never turn it against a few citizen. I wouldn't even think about such nonsense. But, because there are people that think about the act and also perform it, legislators have found it necessary to introduce bills to congress that wouldcon take away these rights.
This is entirely illogical, because of the nature of crime. Crime exists because a person desires to commit an act which violates the rules and standards of his or her government. If a person wants to commit an illegal act, logically, what would stop them from committing another, less punishable illegal act in conjunction with the initial crime? In this case, why would a person who intends to murder someone worry about whether or not their gun was registered with the government? There is no logical progression in the line of gun control activists' thinking. We as a society need to start placing the blame of true problems on those who actually cause them. We need to begin to realize that all people have control over their actions and reactions in all situations and stop blaming inanimate objects for ruined lives and deaths. Guns are not responsible for the atrocity that occurred at Virginia Tech. Rather, an individual wielded those weapons on his own accord. He had the choice to stop his actions at any moment. The guns, on the other hand, could not.