In the aftermath of the tragic shooting in Arizona, fingers point wildly as a grieving nation grapples to make sense of the massacre. Speculation about media influence on the perpetrator is, by nature, vague and inconclusive. Blaming Sarah Palin and her controversial target map, similarly, is misleading and unproductive. Jared Loughner, the suspected gunman, apparently had harbored increasing resentment for his Congresswoman for at least three years, long before Palin claimed her spot as a force of nature in the Republican Party.
More pertinent and, ultimately, more constructive is the debate sparked among gun control advocates across the ideological spectrum, all of whom claim proof positive that their case has been made. For advocates of stronger gun laws, it was Arizona’s loose gun restrictions that enabled the massacre. The view from the other side is that the only way to be safe, whether on public transportation or in a town hall forum, is to be as armed and ready as the potential criminal.
I’m basically a Quaker when it comes to the topic. Ideally, I’d prefer that the presence of handguns be practically nonexistent. But it’s clear that an outright ban on handguns is simply not politically or socially viable in America and may never be. That proof exists in the recent Supreme Court decisions overturning such bans in Washington D.C. and Chicago, an extremely powerful and popular National Rifle Association lobby, and a general consensus that private gun ownership is critical to public safety. Indeed, privately-owned guns can provide a unique security blanket to many a law-abiding citizen.
While widespread gun ownership is simply a reality in the portrait of modern day America, calls for looser restrictions on their possession and use are troubling and incongruous responses to the tragedy. If anything, the attacks demonstrated gaping holes in gun laws, holes that desperately need to be addressed. The surge in sales of the “Glock” gun, the very weapon Loughner used, in the days after the attack is striking and frightening because the semi-automatic nature of the weapon renders it so innately lethal.
Part of the reason why the attack claimed so many lives and left so many injured was because of the gun’s extended magazine, which allowed Loughner to fire 33 bullets without coming up for air. This is no weapon of self-defense; it’s a weapon of murder. The federal assault weapon ban that outlawed this deadly breed of handgun lazily expired in 2004.
Ultimately, these aren’t matters to be resolved with emotion and ideology because both sides share the same noble hopes: to ensure the safety of the American people. But the answer is not an arms race amongst the citizenry. A Glock in every pocket is a sort of Wild West within which none of us could feel truly safe. And the answer isn’t an outright ban on handguns either. The safest way to reconcile the presence of handguns is to create more barriers in the form of better security, more thorough background checks on prospective gun owners, and better tracking of gun sales.
Gun sellers and owners alike need to be held accountable, and Congress needs to reinstate the ban on assault weapons so eerily suited to attacks like the one that occurred in Tucson. Just as a world with nuclear weapons is simultaneously more stable and more risky, policy makers walk a dangerous tightrope when they attempt to reconcile an America with more than 60 million privately-owned handguns.
And just as Congress passed the “START” treaty last month, reducing the riskiest forms of nuclear weapons, policy makers need to take steps to ensure that Americans can protect themselves while preventing potential criminals from treating gun shops like candy stores.
Amanda Scherker is a Communication sophomore. She can be reached at [email protected].
