FT. WAYNE, Ind.--I have
First, what we are doing as a nation is not working. We should all agree on that, and then we can have an open, expansive, and honest conversation about what needs to be done.
Second, gun violence prevention advocates are not the ones who should decide whether we should have more guns in classrooms, and neither are gun rights activists.
Who we should ask are law enforcement professionals.
Having said that, here's what I believe: As a former mayor, I am familiar with police activities and how police officers are trained. And one of the lessons they are taught is how extraordinarily risky it is to fire a gun at a suspect in a crowded environment. It is a terrible idea.
Therefore, I don't support it as part of the answer to making our classrooms safer.
If you went to college, think back to that busy lecture hall with 40, or 60, or even 90 people in it. Think of your position anywhere in that room, and think of an adversary's position, and think about how difficult it would be to successfully fire at that individual without endangering one of the other people in the room. It's practically futile.
We all wish James Bond or John Wayne had been in the room when Seung-Hui Cho opened fire. But real life doesn't work that way. Real life is very complicated, and in a gunfight in a crowded place there are far more possibilities of a bad outcome than a good one.
Don't take my word for it. Listen to Brendan McKown. He's a concealed weapon permit holder in Tacoma, Wash. When a sick 20-year-old opened fire in the Tacoma Mall in November 2006 with an AK-47, McKown was there, and he was armed. But he didn't fire.
He told the press later that he made a conscious decision not to draw his gun because he was afraid it would lead to more victims--not fewer victims.
We should mourn those who died at Virginia Tech and we should comfort their families. And we must do something about the guns themselves.
In the Virginia Tech shooting, an extensive background check on the gun buyer would have revealed a history of aberrant and threatening behavior. The so-called "instant check" system that is now used to screen gun buyers does a credible job in preventing convicted felons from obtaining firearms. But it fails more often than not to weed out stalkers, those with mental illness who pose a danger to themselves or others, and individuals with violent misdemeanor offenses.
The system puts a premium on being fast, not on being thorough.
When the attacker buys a gun, he can now buy a "high capacity" ammunition magazine so that in the midst of his killing spree, he doesn't have to keep reloading all the time. In 1994, Congress banned the manufacture of high capacity ammunition magazines holding 10 or more rounds, but that prohibition was lifted in 2004. Today, virtually anyone can buy ammunition magazines holding 15, 20, or even 50 bullets. You don't even have to pass a background check.
Sensible gun laws would require thorough background checks on gun buyers, impose limits on the size of ammunition clips, and mandate the use of crime gun identification technology. Such laws would save lives without imposing an unreasonable burden on law-abiding gun owners.
To say that we are sorry that these shootings happened is not enough. We should be ashamed--all of us should be ashamed--that we have allowed this to happen. We must all say to the victims at Virginia Tech and their families, and to the families of gun violence victims every day: We have failed you. All of us. We can do better.
So what are we going to do about it?
| Paul Helmke is the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He previously served as the Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., and is former president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. |