The media were kept a discrete distance from the funerals of the Jonesboro victims, allowing the families to mourn their loss with some privacy. Since the story was still a hot issue, however, reporters scoured the immediate area for human interest angles. The BBC went to a gun club where little boys and girls were being given shooting lessons. I was shocked at what I saw.
"Never," said the instructor sternly, "point the weapon at anything you don't intend to destroy."
Destroy? The principle is correct, but the language is inappropriate for youngsters. In fact, the idea being seeded by the instructor is inappropriate for adults, too. It suggests that under certain circumstances it is okay to go ahead and destroy something. Maybe I am being too
sensitive. Maybe.
The instructor then told the camera that while he believed the police were doing a great job, there were simply not enough of them. "There are a lot of bad people out there," he said. The pervading idea was not that the kids were being taught how to shoot for sport, but how to kill people. The mental image conjured up over the gunsight was one of a 'bad guy' - explained by a toddler who appeared about the same age as my own 6-year old daughter, "Er, we learn to shoot so maybe we can go hunting, and when the robber comes to your house you can shoot him." Great, a 6-year old seriously contemplating the possibility of shooting a burglar full of holes. Battleground America.
It used to be that when our kids were a little frightened of the dark shadows at night we'd comfort them with a story or a song and assure them that mom and dad are right next door. What do they do in Arkansas? "Don't be scared baby, remember the 9mm semi-automatic under your pillow, there's a round chambered and all you have to do is take off the safety, point it and pull the trigger. Mommy and daddy will hear the bang and we'll come right away with the pump shotgun and the AK-47. Now, good night and sweet dreams."
I'm not a psychologist or any of the other psy's who make a living trying to analyse the workings of the human mind, but I figure it doesn't take a great leap to connect waxing burglars with a convenient way to solve many of life's other little problems. I think that all of us possess an ability to commit acts of extreme violence - only the parameters of our threshold to violence and the instruments employed vary from person to person.
Doesn't it make sense to explore ways to push that threshold of violence as far as possible and limit the availability of deadly weapons through which that violence can be acted out? The first, I suppose, begins with education and example. The second is something practical - and taking guns out of the equation would be a good place to start.
Guns are not the only tool used to kill people, but they are one of the most convenient. A weapon of choice. To use a knife, a blunt instrument or even one's bare hands the killer has to get in close - now that could be a major drawback if one's target is formidable in size and strength. Up close and personal also limits opportunities for a clean escape.
The two boys in Jonesboro intended to escape. They planned their killing spree to avoid detection. Okay, their plan was childish and flawed - but it was planned. An APJ reader suggested that if the will to kill was there the boys could just have easily have driven their stolen van into a crowd of schoolmates. The result would have been equally fatal to the victims - but it would have also closed off any opportunity for a clean getaway. And, I repeat, the boys intended to escape.
I seriously doubt that there would have been a Jonesboro massacre if the boys didn't have easy access to guns.
Restricting access to guns won't stop murder, that would be a naive suggestion. But it could conceivably reduce the number of drive-by shootings - hey, you have to start somewhere, right? According to the figures I have there were 17,800 firearm related homicides reported in the US in 1995. I wonder how many of those could have been avoided if the killer were forced to use a more primitive and less effective weapon? In the same year there were 18,700 firearm related suicides, 1,300 unintentional deaths related to firearms, including 330 people under the age of 18. It is speculative, of course, perhaps the 17,800 homicides may have happened anyway. Maybe the 18,700 suicides would have opted for slower, more painful but equally effective means of doing away with themselves. What isn't speculative is that the 1,300 unintentional deaths could have been avoided.
I was a responsible gun owner. I was also responsible enough to recognise that my right to keep a gun in the house was insignificant when compared to the rights of innocent victims of gun abuse.
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot |
