CNN Gets in on Gun Debate After Virginia Tech Massacre

It may appear inevitable now, but the Virginia Tech massacre that occurred on Monday, April 16, 2007, as well as all of the threats that occurred in middle schools, high schools, colleges, and universities across the country, brought gun regulation and the right to bear arms to the forefront once again. As a result, people on both sides of the debate are coming out of the woodwork to explain their position, and demonstrate how it would have made an incident such as that which occurred at Virginia Tech much less likely. While both sides have some strong points, it isn't likely that a total ban on guns, nor armed bystanders, could have completely prevented the horror that occurred at Virginia Tech. In an exclusive special, CNN featured pieces written by prominent people on opposite sides of the debate, Ted Nugent, who is a great supporter of gun owners' rights, and Tom Plate, former editor at the LA Times and UCLA professor, who supports much tighter gun control measures.

Ted Nugent, who is known as a musician and a dedicated outdoorsman, expressed his frustration that there was no responsible gun owner around who would have had the opportunity to take out Seung-Hui Cho before he had the opportunity to kill and injure so many people. He sighted the gun-free zones that surrounded most of the worst mass shootings in US history. In his commentary, he specifically discussed Columbine, the mass shooting in a Lubby's Cafeteria in Texas, and others. In support of his theory that responsible gun owners would have been able to prevent the shooter from completing his mission, he discussed how mass shootings don't take place in police stations, military installations, and other locations in which people are normally armed. While many people agree with his point of view, many others, such as Tom Plate, do not.

Tom Plate stated in his editorial that he believes the gun lobby has it all wrong when it is stated that people kill other people, not guns. He supports the deduction that a reduction of guns in the United States would logically reduce the number of gun related deaths. What aren't addressed in his article are illegal sources of all types of guns. For example, if law-abiding citizens agree to suspend their right to bear arms, citizens who are on the wrong side of the law won't hesitate to go to illegal sources for guns. In essence, you will leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who broke the law in order to procure guns. An increase in crime has been documented in Australia as a result of new, strict gun laws.

While Mr. Plate's argument has its issues, so does Mr. Nugent's. For example, who will determine who is responsible enough to carry a handgun? Seung-Hui Cho, while exhibiting serious symptoms of mental illness and instability, was able to purchase his guns legally. What both sides can agree on is that the system is imperfect and needs to be fixed. This may mean new standardization with regards to requirements for gun purchase. However, by making most guns illegal, the source of the problem is not truly being addressed. It is the mental instability of people like Seung-Hui Cho that needs to be addressed more fully by American society.

Sources:

Nugent, Ted. CNN News. "Gun-Free Zones are Recipe for Disaster."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html

Plate, Tom. CNN News. "Let's Lay Down Our Right to Bear Arms." http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/index.html