How Can We Stop School Shootings?
So, this past Tuesday, a 15-year old student at the high school in Oxford, MI walks into the school with a semi-automatic pistol, shoots off a whole bunch of rounds, kills four kids and wounds seven others, including one teacher. He’s apprehended by two cops within five minutes after his assault began, and that’s that.
Where did he get the gun which killed and wounded eleven people in five minutes or less? Evidently his father purchased it on Black Friday, no doubt because he wanted a gun for self-defense. I mean, you don’t buy a semi-automatic pistol that carries a magazine with 15–20 rounds to go hunting Bambi in the woods or to knock a bird out of a tree.
In fact, the gun was a 9mm Sig Sauer. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the same model which the U.S. military now carries, the armed forces having decided to upgrade their handheld weaponry from the Beretta 92 pistol that had been issued for the previous thirty years.
We are the only country in the entire world which gives its residents easy access to guns whose only purpose is to end human life. Now you can rationalize walking around with a Sig or Glock any way you want, but let me break it to the you gently, okay? The World Health Organization defines violence as a medical problem caused by the intentional attempt by one person to injure himself or someone else. And the WHO doesn’t differentiate between so-called self-defense versus an assault. Violence is violence, okay?
Every year we suffer more than 100,000 deaths and injuries committed by using guns. And we’re not talking about Grandpa’s old shotgun that’s sitting in the basement collecting rust and dust. We’re also not talking about those 22-caliber, bolt-action rifles that you can pay half a buck to shoot at some plastic ducks at the county fair.
We are talking about guns like the kind of gun that the Oxford shooter used in his assault, and the idea that all we need to do is keep these guns out of the ‘wrong hands’ by locking those guns up and dealing with them in a ‘responsible’ and ‘safe’ way is a joke.
The same day that this kid committed mayhem with his father’s gun, his father and mother had been at the school talking to teachers and administrators about the behavior of their son. They weren’t at the school to get an award for how well their son was behaving in and out of class. The purpose of their visit was to talk about problems the school was experiencing with their son.
What do you think were the odds that the parents of this obviously disturbed kid were asked whether their home contained a gun? I’ll tell you that the odds were — zilch. The mother of the kid who slaughtered 25 adults and children at Sandy Hook dragged her son from one shrink to another over the years before that horrendous event. Not one medical professional raised the issue of gun access in the home — not one.
Once Governor Whitmer gets done mouthing her ‘thoughts and prayers’ platitudes about what happened in Oxford and repeats for the umpteenth time that gun violence is a threat to public health, I have a solution for what could be done to prevent or at least reduce school shootings, not just in Michigan but everywhere else.
Why don’t we pass a law which prohibits anyone from owning or possessing bottom-loading, semi-automatic guns in their home as long as the home is the residence of a school-age child? Would it be what Grandpa would call a gefailech (read: big deal) if everyone had to put off owning a ‘killer’ gun until such time as their children grew up and left home?
And by the way, for those readers who believe that such a law would jeopardize their beloved gun ‘rights,’ let me break it gently to them as well. It is accepted without question in this country that government has a ‘compelling interest’ in keeping the community safe. Which means that any law restricting ownership of guns whose presence constitutes a clear threat to community safety does not violate the 2nd Amendment at all.
Don’t believe me? Just take a look at the law which bans assault rifles in the city of Highland Park, a law that was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2015. And by the way, this law didn’t ‘grandfather’ in assault rifles that were already owned by residents of Highland Park. The law says that if you want to own an assault rifle, no matter when it was purchased, you have to move out of town.
I don’t understand why my friends in Gun-control Nation go out of their way to avoid the issue of banning the most lethal consumer products that can be kept in the home and then lament and wring their hands when someone uses one of these products the way they were designed to be used.
Am I missing something here?