Soon after the Parkland shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in South Florida, Everytown for Gun Safety tweeted that it’s the 18th school shooting of 2018.
Which it is, according to their statistics. However, the Washington Post published a great article explaining why that number is wrong.
According to the Washington Post, there have really only been five true school shootings since the start of 2018.
“Only” five…that’s still almost one per week. (And still one too many.)
Here’s another interesting, not to mention sobering, stat the Washington Post shared:
An ongoing Washington Post analysis has found that more than 150,000 students attending at least 170 primary or secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999.
And they say they’re number is actually on the conservative side.
150,000 students…Seriously?
How many have been killed?
The New York Times compiled data from the Gun Violence Archive that started tracking school shooting stats after Sandy Hook. Since that time, 438 people have been shot, 138 killed.
That doesn’t include the 13 from Columbine in 1999, the 9 (total; 2 were not killed at the school) in the 2005 Red Lake shooting, the 32 at the Virginia Tech Massacre in 2007, or the dozens more killed between Columbine and this latest shooting that had lesser numbers of fatalities but fatalities nonetheless.
The point is, it’s too many. It’s not getting better. It’s only getting worse. Take a look at Wikipedia’s School shootings in the United States. Each decade the number has increased, with the exception of the 2000s. It was a slight decrease then. But look at the 2010s. Staggering.
- In the 1940s there were 8
- In the 1950s there were 17
- In the 1960s there were 18
- In the 1970s there were 30
- In the 1980s there were 39
- In the 1990s there were 63
- In the 2000s there were 60
- In the 2010s so far there have been 143
Wake Up!
After every shooting, even this latest one, a lot of politicians will say, “This isn’t the time to make any decisions about gun control.”
After this most recent school shooting, Paul Ryan had the audacity to say, “This is not the time to jump to some conclusion.”
Like so many others are asking, when will it be the time?
After 9/11 it was time to jump to conclusions about stricter screenings at airports and events, right?
But this staunch supposed family man insists this isn’t the time to jump to action with kids dying and parents losing their children.
The Arguments
Pro-Gun sympathizers like to make certain arguments, especially after mass shooting incidents, such as:
- Guns don’t kill people; people kill people
- Gun control doesn’t work
- This isn’t a political issue/laws couldn’t have prevented this
- We need more guns (ie. People with guns deter gun violence)
A pro-gun friend on Facebook lamented the fact that liberals would be trying to make this a political issue again, even though it’s not, and that gun control doesn’t work.
I politely disagreed with him and briefly told him why. Namely:
- No one needs a AR15, especially not a 19 year old.
- And how is it that a 19 year old can legally purchase such a gun when he’s not even legally allowed to drink?
- I also said something else about how you can’t even book a hotel room or rent a car until you’re 25, but after doing some checking I see I have my facts wrong on that. Some places won’t let you book a hotel room if you’re under 25, but most require you be at least 18. Some car rental agencies will impose a surcharge on renters between the ages of 20-24.
One of my friend’s friends replied to my comment and said that no way would Americans give up their guns.
I never said that. In fact, I don’t know anyone who is saying anything like that.
But it’s interesting that gun folks are associating “gun control” with “gun revocation.” No wonder they’re so against it.
And as for, “Guns don’t kill people, people do.”
Yes. Because guns are made by people for people to use. For the purpose of killing. No one ever pointed a gun at something hoping to tickle it. Come on. Get serious.
Gun Control
The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing but expecting different results.
We haven’t tried gun control yet. People who argue it can’t work have no idea if it will or not.
Australia and some European countries have instituted stricter regulations, though. And they are having success.
- More stringent background checks in Switzerland allow its citizens to own guns while striving to keep the population as a whole safe from potentially crazy gun owners.
- In Germany if you’re under 25 you have to undergo rigorous psychological and physical examinations to buy a gun.
- Australia banned semi-automatic rifles. Australia has still had some gun violence incidents, but no fatal mass shootings since their tragic one in 1996.
- Germany, Finland and Scotland have had zero school shootings the past decade. (Can you imagine?)
Compromise
No one wants to take away anyone’s guns…unless you possess them illegally, are a criminal, or are mentally unstable.
However, there really does need to be some sort of compromise. Most people are okay going through screenings and scanners at airports, concerts, sporting events and the like to try and deter terrorism and other mass casualty situations post 9/11, so what’s the difference with more stringent gun controls?
People are essentially lazy. The harder you make it for them to do something, the less appealing it becomes.
You could also argue it might make them become more creative if they’re really determined. It could. But we’ll never know if we don’t try and we’ve got to start somewhere.
Here’s some things that would help the issue we’ve got now while not violating Second Amendment rights:
- Insurance and Licenses – You have to have both to drive a car, which can be just as deadly as any gun. It’s only fair you pay to play. Licensing fees could be used to pay for mental health screenings and psychological monitoring programs. Insurance could cover if an owner’s gun is stolen and used in a crime to help compensate victims’ families.
- Age Limits – 21 should be the minimum age to purchase or own a gun, regardless of the type. (As it stands now, you can’t buy a handgun until you’re 21, but you can buy a “long” gun –rifle, shotgun or military-style assault weapon like the AR-15– when you’re 18.)
- Ban on Assault Weapons – There is no need for any average citizen to own such a weapon. Period.
- Psychological Evaluations – Background checks alone are clearly not doing any good. There needs to be another component, like assessing whether you’re mentally healthy to handle the responsibility of gun ownership. This latest shooting is a perfect example. People are trying to say it’s not a gun issue but a mental health one, yet there’s nothing in place to even assess that. It’s like going to any other doctor. You can know you have an ache or pain that’s not obvious to others and choose not to go to the doctor. How the heck is anyone going to know who’s mentally unwell or not if there are no measurements? If Nikolas Cruz had had to undergo a mental evaluation to buy a gun, there’s a chance he wouldn’t have legally been able to get his hands on one –and perhaps could’ve gotten the help he needed before 17 people lost their lives. Yes, there’s the chance he could’ve “outsmarted” the test, but that’s giving him a lot of credit.
- Chips and Technology – We need to know where all registered guns are at any given time. If yours gets lost or stolen, there needs to be an app to track it.
Again, no one wants to deny anyone their right to qualified gun ownership. However, to stop the epidemic of school shootings –heck, mass shootings altogether– some changes have to be made.
If you’re not willing, and if you’re that insistent that your personal rights are that important to deny the safety of others, what you’re really saying is that your rights are more important than someone else’s life. That’s pretty selfish, not to mention complicit in allowing murders like these to continue.