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."