My reply to Of Deadly Shootings & Gun Control. Rationale

Simply put, the following text is my reply to Sarah Moir's letter to the editor that attacked my piece, "No end in sight for firearms."

As a self-proclaimed advocate for gun control laws, it is of no surprise to me that many Americans will disagree with some, if not all, the beliefs I hold regarding this particular issue. Recently, Sarah Moir made it very explicit in her letter to the editor that she did not agree with my views on lawmakers and how they handle the burden of deadly shootings that seem to be occurring quite frequently. While Moir may believe that she effectively debunked my last column, “No end in sight for firearms,” I will show that she did not.
In my last article, I discussed Sen. Mark Christiensen of Nebraska’ s proposal to allow teachers, staff and security to carry guns in school as a precaution against school shootings. In opposition to this horrible idea, I suggested that schools invest in metal detectors to deter school shootings. While I am aware that metal detectors may not in fact deter crime, I suggested this as a “generic” solution since any solution is better than passing out guns to teachers and secretaries. However, Moir could not grasp this idea. “Installing metal detectors breeds an atmosphere of distrust and fear.. “ Moir said. I would like to concentrate on the words “distrust” and “fear” for a moment. While Moir believes that metal detectors provoke fear and distrust in schools, is it not possible to say the same exact thing about allowing faculty to carry guns in school? Teachers carrying guns to class in the presence of students that TRUST them is both distrusting and fearful. Metal detectors do not spark fear, but rather eliminate it.
I was amused when Moir made the remark that my metal detector suggestion was a vague concept of safety. However, she reiterates vagueness when she fails to provide a satisfactory solution to the elimination of violence. Moir says, “The solution to eliminating violence is not to react to it, but to prevent it.” She then says that preventing violence is accomplished by understanding violence itself rather than abolishing firearms. This is where things get hazy for Moir. She fails to comprehend that understanding a problem and solving it are two different things. While I have the option of reading psychology books on crime and try to dissect the criminal mind, I still have not solved the problem. I have not solved the problem of why an angry individual took the lives of his classmates. I understand that he picked up a gun and fired, but I still lack a solution for preventing a similar incident. While metal detectors may be a generic solution to school violence, it at least aims at a solving a problem. Moir’s solution has no aim.
At the end of her article, Moir recommended I read a book on psychological effects of killing written by an Army psychologist. While I have no intention of reading this material, I am going to return the favor and leave Moir a powerful quote by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. :
"Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."

Of Deadly Shootings and Gun Control. Rationale

The different aspects and perspectives of society have allowed me to express my feelings in a very "unique" way. One of the aspects of nowadays society is violence, particularly gun violence. Nearly all Americans are still suffering from the almost deadly effects of the Jan. 8 shooting attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Thankfully, the young woman survived her horrific ordeal. However, society is still stricken by the effects of such an incident. Whenever something tragic happens in one's life, they tend to have one question that no one(no matter how thoroughly they try) can seem to answer.This question is why. All that the suffering individual wants to know is WHY things of this nature seem to occur over and over again. Sadly, we still do not have the answer. From reading newspapers, Yahoo! news, Google, and various other media sites, I have come to some type of conclusion. Guns. Yes, NRA, guns are the problem. Well, let me be very clear on how I phrase that last sentence. Guns, as strictly inanimate objects, do not possess the capability to propose any threat to society. Instead, it is us "rational" human beings that are using these "innocent" objects to create problems. The problem that must be solved is how easy it is to get guns in this country. Obviously, gun violence, high death tolls, and high homicide rates have not given lawmakers any clues as to why strict gun laws need to go into effect, soon, uh I mean NOW!!!!. What is America waiting for? Another assassination attempt? Yes, humans. This is very rational.

Approximately two weeks ago, I wrote an article for my college newspaper, The Argus, in response to Nebraska's proposal to create a new gun law. I am deeply sorry if I forgot to mention that lawmakers in Nebraska have all this easy access to gun business figured out. Hats off to you Nebraska! Two weeks ago, I read an article on Yahoo! about Sen. Mark Christensen of Nebraska wanting to propose a gun law that will allow teachers, school administrators and security guards to carry concealed weapons inside schools. This law is supposed to combat school shootings(since Nebraska is still in shock over the Jan. 5 shooting at Millard South High School). I was beyond outraged when I read such a proposal. This is not even close to human rationality. Handing out guns is not the solution to gun violence in this country. It creates more problems than it hopes to get rid of. In my article, I made it evident that I am against such a proposal and that there had to be some other possible solution to the problem of gun violence. I proposed the generic solution of installing metal detectors in schools. While this is a generic solution, it may be crazy enough to work(?). However, one of the students at my university did not seem to understand my argument and decided to reply to my article. She was quite upset with my generic idea lol. I intend to reply to her "irrationality" in the next week to come, but for now I will leave you with her reply to my argument. Enjoy. Oh, and thanks to all those who had the attention span and excitability to make it this far in the post.

The objection
Deadly shootings are occurring across the country with alarming frequency. In her last column, Kiara Blake-Knight refuted lawmakers' reactionary support for concealed-carry laws, concluding that carrying concealed weapons inherently increases violence.
As an alternative to that solution, Blake-Knight advocates a vague concept of "safety," which would involve employing the use of metal detectors in schools. But this is also an ill-advised response to killing sprees.
Installing metal detectors breeds an atmosphere of distrust and fear, causing students to feel persecuted and criminalized upon entering an institution they are obligated to attend. Additionally, many American schools find the intense logistical issues involved with installing these nearly impossible to overcome. Poorer areas, where crime is typically more prevalent, lack the public tax revenue to purchase, install, maintain and staff these metal detectors.
The solution to eliminating violence is not to react to it, but to prevent it. This is accomplished not through eliminating the use of firearms and other weapons outright, but in understanding violence itself and what causes violence. Shootings do not occur because of guns; they occur because of disgruntled, disturbed people who decide violence is the best solution to a problem.
Blake-Knight attacks human intelligence and rationality because they use guns and weapons to facilitate their killing, unlike animals. Humans created weapons to increase the distance between killer and victim.
While this fact is depressing, considering we are now capable of destroying entire Pakistani villages while sitting in front of a computer screen in America, it is also an example of brilliant mental prowess.
By creating weapons, humans also created the ability to kill more efficiently, effectively and with less psychological damage to the killers.
The existence of guns facilitates higher levels of violence, but promoting ambiguous "safety" by advocating the installation of grossly expensive machines and creating an atmosphere of distrust certainly does not come across as the best course of action. Perhaps Blake-Knight could stand to educate herself more on the psychology and sociology of violence and why people kill. Maybe then she could attack those who attempt to prevent violence and shootings with a more effective argument.
I would recommend a book by Lt. Dave Grossman M.D., an Army psychologist who examined the psychological effects of killing on humans in a book called "On Killing:The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War in Society." Additionally, James Gilligan M.D., in his book "Violence:Reflections on a National Epidemic," examined violent criminal offenders and the psychological and structural issues that led them to kill.
Kiara Blake-Knight asks for an effective, crime-deterring solution. How about eliminating class divisions that promote animosity, racism that manufactures inferiority, prisons that dehumanize American citizens or wars that promote violence as a solution?

Nebraska Proposes to Let Teachers Carry Guns

The following is an article that I wrote for my school newspaper in opposition to Nebraska wanting to allow school officials, including teachers, carry guns in school.


I feel like I’m in the twilight zone. Well, a bad episode that is. For the past two weeks or so, gun crimes have been constantly circulating in the news. How to deal with these types of crimes has also come up in various articles and news proceedings. On January 5, 2011, a 17-year old Omaha, Nebraska student shot both the principal and assistant principal of his high school. As a result of this unfortunate incident, Sen. Mark Christensen proposed a bill that will allow teachers, security staff, and school administrators to carry guns in school. Let me be the first and foremost to tell Sen. Christensen that he is completely out of his mind.

This proposal is similar to the conceal-carry law that Mayor Jim Ardis proposed last summer for the city of Peoria. Both of these laws are meant to deter crime ,but in fact, they do the opposite. There has been at least twenty-two homicides in 2010 alone for Peoria. May I remind you that this is post-conceal- carry. Nebraska seems ready to fall into the same category as Peoria, “unsafe and trigger happy.” Why do lawmakers believe that the answer to violence is more violence? Where is the rationale in that line of thinking?

I believe that the answer to deterring crime is not giving the weak and scared guns(it’s evident that this actually leads to more violence than less). Instead, it should be safety. Safety is something that should do just as the name suggests, provide something that is safe. As a concept, “safety” is the solution to the problem of gun violence in schools. However, it cannot stop there. What is something in particular that can be done to deter this type of crime? While there are countless answers to this question, the first response that comes to mind, without too much thought, is metal detectors. Metal detectors allow for safety because they screen everyone and everything that walks through them. This includes weapons besides guns(i.e, a knife). Metal detectors would deter school shootings faster than giving a history teacher a semi-automatic rifle to hold while taking attendance.

Another similarity between Ardis and Christensen is that as lawmakers, they fail to make wise decisions. Lawmakers should try their hardest to prevent crime at all costs. It is very easy to say “let’s just give everybody guns” instead of asking, “is there an effective solution out there that will actually deter crime, and if so, for how long?”

There is never a crime horrific enough that will allow for school officials to have to carry guns to school. We are members of a civilized society, and not gorillas in a cage. Humans claim to be more intelligent and rational than animals. However, have you ever seen a wolf use a gun to kill a sheep?

Death Penalty for Attempted Assassin Jared Loughner

This has to be by far the most disturbing image of an attempted assassin I have ever seen! The photo depicts Jared Loughner, the wannabe assassin who attempted to assassinate Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords outside a grocery store on Saturday. Loughner critically wounded the congresswoman and killed six other people including Federal Judge John Roll. Today 22- year old Jared Loughner, often described as a loner, appeared in court after being brought up on murder charges. Loughner is facing the death penalty if convicted.

For some reason, I still have not formed an opinion about Jared Loughner. I guess this is understandable when any act of violence leaves more questions than answers. The main question that comes to mind in a situation like this is WHY? Why did innocent lives have to be taken? Why did Loughner decide to punish so many families by killing their loved ones? Most importantly, WHY would he even think about committing such a crime? These are questions that the public may never know, or will never have the capacity to ever know. As an attempt to shed light on such a dark situation, Giffords' brother-in-law issued this statement:

"These days, we are constantly reminded of the unspeakable acts of violence and damage we can inflict upon one another, not just with our actions, but also with our irresponsible words,"

I agree that actions and words can both inflict violence and bring harm to others. However, actions seem to cause more pain than words so to speak. As the saying goes, "actions speak louder than words." By actions alone, Loughner showed not only Arizona, but the world, how strong his feelings are towards the government. While I stand by my idea that the government is not expedient in its efforts to enhance the economy, environment, or well-being of citizens, there is never an excuse to murder. While those of you who read my last blog entry concerning the actions of Robert Butler Jr., may find this statement to be contradictory, I did not condone his shooting of his principal and assistant principal. Instead, I defended the fact that he at least took responsibility for his actions with an apology. This is something that Loughner has yet to do(it is unlikely that he will). Loughner has not spoken a word since the shooting.

What do we know about Jared Loughner? Nothing except that he lacks the capacity for emotion or remorse. He killed six additional people and injured 14 while targeting Giffords. However, from a philosophical point of view, can we label Loughner as someone who is ALL BAD? Is there any good left in a man who cold bloodily murdered six people? While we may all have our opinions on the matter, this is frankly something that we are in no position to say.

Omaha School Shooting:Are all Killers Bad?

On Jan. 5, 2011, Millard South High School students in Omaha, Nebraska experienced a violent incident that has been dubbed "The worst school shooting incident in Nebraska history". Around 8AM Wednesday morning, 17- year old high school Senior Robert Butler Jr. was summoned to the principal's office after a surveillance camera revealed that he had purposely driven his vehicle over the school football field. Butler's punishment consisted of a 19-day suspension. After being escorted out of the school, Butler returned a few hours later(around 12:45PM) and opened fire on Assistant Principal Vicki Kaspar, mortally wounding her, and injuring Principal Curtis Case. Approximately 30 minutes after the shooting took place, Butler was found dead a mile from the high school from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. While this incident has been named the worst school shooting in Nebraska history, I view this incident as rather mild. In the past, I have heard horror stories of school shootings in which students are nearly tortured by their attackers before being murdered. This type of torture is not seen in the Millard school shooting. Butler took revenge(hopefully I am accurate in saying this) on the two individuals that he believed to be a threat to him at that particular moment.


Those who knew Robert Butler Jr. referred to him as a good, but unhappy student who struggled about the midyear move he had to make from Lincoln to Omaha, Nebraska. Though Butler had been unhappy with the transition to a different school, he had not had any disciplinary problems prior to driving his car across the football field. There is something to be noticed about this description of Robert Butler Jr. He was not described as a troublesome or disturbed child. Instead, he was described as "good, but unhappy". This sounds pretty normal to me. Many students, especially teens,can easily become unhappy when things don't go quite right in their life. Not all of them are driven to murder, but this does not mean that they aren't suffering. Another feature that I have noticed about this incident is that Butler had the opportunity to shoot any other staff members or students that he wanted to, but he DID NOT. He did not display any anger or hatred towards anyone else. This is very uncommon in school shootings. Most of the time, innocent students are killed by remorseless teenage killers. Robert Butler Jr. is not, and should not be labeled a remorseless killer. Either before or after the shooting took place at Millard, Butler posted to his facebook that he is sorry to all those that knew him because they will hear about the evil he had done,but that the school(Millard) had driven him to to this. "I greatly affected the lives of families ruined but I'm sorry. goodbye" Feeling bad for the families of his victims and showing signs of remorse, are not something that is usually seen in school shooters. Instead, it shows that there was still some good left in Butler.

What I am trying to point out here is that not all killers can be labeled as "bad". From a philosophical standpoint, what is bad? More specifically how can a person be viewed as bad? This is a moral question that humans still struggle to answer. What people forget is that not all people handle stress in the same way. Butler's difficult transition to a new school may have been the trigger for the shooting. If someone, anyone had taken the time to really understand his thoughts and feelings, then this ordeal may have been prevented. Schools provide some assistance for struggling students(aside from academically), but expect the suffering students to explicitly ask for help. Not all students do this. School officials should try their hardest to reach out to ALL students. In fact, parents, teachers, principals, friends, relatives, and even neighbors should never think twice about helping someone that they believe is in need of help.

While my heart goes out to the victims of the Millard High shooting, my heart also goes out to Robert Butler, Jr. A kid described as "good' who will now forever be viewed as "bad."