As the shock from the massacre at Virginia Tech wears off, it
appears the political fallout will be minimal. While there were a
few calls for more gun control in the wake of the tragedy, they
have gained no steam in Congress. Perhaps members of Congress are
wary of the voting habits of gun owners. Or perhaps the public, in
general, no longer views gun control as the proper response to the
latest psycho who opens fire.
Whatever the reason, it may be time to consider gun policies
that move us in the opposite direction: arming ourselves.
We all wish that the government could protect us from the likes
of Seung-Hui Cho. Unfortunately, government systems are usually
inefficient at best, counter-productive at worst. Cho was briefly
committed to psychiatric care by the courts but was ultimately
treated on an outpatient basis. Since he was not involuntarily
being treated as an inpatient, he was still legally able to by
firearms. Virginia Tech was a “gun free” campus, a regulation that,
in the end, may have done little more than leave Cho’s victims
defenseless. And even the police, who heroically put their lives on
the line for us everyday, cannot be everywhere at all times.
Rather than relying on government, we need to rely on ourselves.
We need to have more people owning guns and obtaining
concealed-carry permits. We need to have more exposure to the
proper handling of guns as we grow up. And we need more of our
officials to be armed, especially those officials in charge of our
most vulnerable.
One half-baked notion that stands in the way of pursuing such
policies is “randomness.” For example, a story in the New York Times refers to
Virginia Tech student Ross Alameddine as one of Cho’s “random
shooting victims.” Back in March of 2005, teenager Jeff Weise shot
and killed nine people at Red Lake High School in Minnesota. An
MSNBC article at the time stated that “investigators did not
know if a grudge or vendetta led to the killings and that Weise’s
targets appeared to be random.”
Such victims are random only in the sense that the killer does
not know them personally. Otherwise, they are victims in a very
systematic way. To take a page from Thomas Sowell, note that
neither Cho nor Weise targeted a police station or the local
National Guard unit — i.e. those places filled with folks who can
shoot back. Instead, they targeted schools, where almost no one has
a gun. If we want to minimize the chances of another school
shooting, then we need to put guns in the hands of those in charge
of schools.
For starters, it should be government policy that every
principal and vice principal take firearms training and be armed at
all times when on school grounds. Teachers should have the option
of doing so.
In universities and colleges, some members of the administration
should also be required to be trained in and carry firearms. All
administrators and professors should have that option. Universities
and colleges should also consider programs were select students
would be given such training and given permission to carry a
concealed weapon. The schedules of such students would be
coordinated so that at least one armed student would be in each
classroom building at all times. Students who agreed to participate
in these programs could be given a discount on their tuition as an
incentive.
Finally, we should consider giving high school and college
students firearm training. This will help them become more familiar
with and less afraid of guns, and thus more willing to carrying
firearms for protection. With more law-abiding people carrying
guns, killers like Cho and Weise will have a much harder time
finding defenseless human targets.
The fact is thugs are only deterred by those with sufficient
firepower. That’s why Congress has made it legal for pilots to be
armed. If it’s a good policy for the protection of airline
passengers, why not for the protection of children and young
adults?
David Hogberg is a Washington writer and host of the
website Health Hog.
