America has a long and shameful tradition of gun violence. In the past decade alone, the infamous massacres at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech have served as grim reminders of the backlash of the gun culture that the U.S. has fostered over the years.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution allows Americans the right to bear arms, purportedly as a means of self-defense. However, this very right is often abused and threatens the right of other citizens to live safe and productive lives. The government must take heed of this paradox and employ measures to substantially reduce the likelihood of gun violence. This can be achieved, in part, by pursuing stricter gun regulation that works toward the ultimate goal of a complete ban on guns.
It would be great if the aforementioned chapters of America’s history were simply that: vestiges of the past that we, as a nation, have learned from, and that will never again occur. This, sadly, is not the case. Recent incidences of gun violence that have gained particular media attention, like those in Oakland and in Pittsburgh, attest to the fact that we still live in a nation very much menaced by firearm abuse.
With the constant recurrence of such acts of violence, it is surprising that no drastic measures have been taken to better ensure the safety of the citizenry. They only generate debate.
Security is not simply a matter of discussion. It is a matter of utmost priority that must be met with action. Rather than being ignored, these occurrences have to be treated as indicators of a defective system that needs to be rectified.
These attacks share a common attribute: The perpetrators were not even supposed to be in possession of these weapons in the first place. In the Columbine incident, the shooters, then 17, were able to obtain weapons through a straw purchase, in which someone else acted as a proxy buyer on their behalf. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits possession of firearms by minors and straw purchases to any individual, regardless of age.
The perpetrator of the Virginia Tech massacre had been declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice two years prior to the attack, which would have made it illegal for him to possess a firearm. In the March 2009 shooting of four Oakland officers, the gunman had access to firearms even though he had an extensive criminal history. The shooter from the Pittsburgh incident was dishonorably discharged from the Marine Corps. Under the current interpretation of the law, none of the attackers had legal rights to gun ownership.
Despite current regulation, firearms still constantly manage to end up in the wrong hands. A 2003 survey headed by Susan B. Sorenson, then a UCLA professor of community health sciences, indicated that 52.5 percent of gun dealers agreed to conduct straw purchases, which represents blatant disregard for the repercussions of gun circulation. The long list of firearm incidents that have accumulated over the years serves as a reminder of lax governmental regulation, easily bypassed by those with sinister motives in mind.
While stricter regulation might potentially decrease the threat of gun violence, this alone cannot fully eliminate the danger. In the recent Binghamton, N.Y., episode, the assailant had legal possession of his firearm, and had no previous history of aggression. This begs the question: Is it really possible to profile potential attackers?
No matter how much regulation is placed on gun ownership, the public availability of firearms will always persist as a looming threat to public safety. Even if a majority of owners exercise restraint in the use of firearms, one irresponsible user is all it takes to justify a complete ban. The danger of firearms, after all, rests in the unforeseeable horrors that human beings are capable of in times of extreme desperation.
Of course, the right, some would say the need, to bear arms is also at risk in a total gun ban. Many gun advocates view firearms as a necessary evil to protect themselves from an increasingly violent world. However, the rise of new technologies such as Tasers offer nonlethal and less risky alternatives to conventional firearms. Personal protection can be made available with a significantly minimal threat to another’s life.
The culture of firearms in America has proven dangerous, considering the gross irresponsibility exhibited by certain gun owners. To reduce the persistence of bloodshed, the government must take the initiative to place heavy regulations on firearms, working toward the eventual disarmament of the public. These atrocities are a disgraceful part of America’s history and, unless something is done to counter this violence head-on, it will continue to be America’s future.
E-mail Ong at rong@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.