Today, while reading various things on Tumblr like I tend to do, I came across something Wil Wheaton reposted that moved me to tears. And then it made me angry. It was an excerpt from a letter written to the US Congress by a woman whose two children attended Sandy Hook school and, fortunately, survived the shooting. You can read it here: http://newtownaction.org/letter-from-sandy-hook-mom/
She tells how her children, ages six and eight had to face their friends, classmates and teachers being massacred. They were happy little girls whose innocence was ruined by a sick man with a gun. The younger of the two was in one of the classrooms closest to the entrance of the school and heard the shooting and the screaming on the other side of the wall. She now suffers from severe PTSD and has nightmares, is afraid of loud noises, and doesn't want to go outside.
The biggest tragedy to happen since Newtown, however, is the fact that innocent little lives were lost or changed forever, and yet nothing has changed. Why? I don't even know where to begin. 'Red tape', mostly. And I don't want to discredit myself by sounding like a conspiracy nut, but it's true. Obama said from day one that a serious change needed to be made. He wants for there to be a difference, for needless slaughter like this to never ever happen again.
TV and news pundits from Jon Stewart (a man I both enjoy and respect) to Peirs Morgan have said, entirely sombrely, that it's time to do something serious. In fact, they said it after the last massive tragedy - in the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado - after the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, after Columbine and countless others.
And if you're good with your history, you will know that the Columbine massacre will have its 14th anniversary this month. Since then, there have been more mass murders by firearm than at any other time in US history. And the majority of these have been in supposedly 'safe' public places - theaters, malls, and most tragically, schools. The majority of those killed didn't even know their murderer, they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
3 of the 4 worst school shootings in US history have happened within the last 2 decades (with the exception of the 1966 University of Texas sniper attack by Charles Whitman, who killed 16 people). And there is a reason for this pattern - guns. The accessibility to guns has become much more relaxed in recent years, and the weapons are more powerful than ever before. I'm no expert, but I do know that the shooter at Newtown only had to reload a few times in the process of killing dozens. And I also know that, if his gun had a smaller magazine, he would have had to reload more frequently, and there would have been more time for his potential victims to hide, escape, protect themselves, or even stop him, as some staff so bravely tried to do.
I am well aware that in my last blog about this tragedy, (read it here: http://whatithinkaboutanythingandeverything.blogspot.ca/2012/12/tragedy-dedicated-to-victims-of-newtown.html) I said that guns weren't even the issue, because they don't kill people on their own. I have done some thinking since then, and I was partly wrong. While it is true that many guns are inanimate objects that go through their time without harming anyone, the fact of the matter is that they are so readily available that it's far too easy for someone who is mentally disturbed to get their hands on one - even legally. If they're not outlawed altogether, there definitely needs to be a more selective screening process for selling them, and these laws need to be enforced. The Newtown shooter took his mother's legally-obtained weapons and used them on his spree - after killing her. Why was he so easily able to gain access to such destructive weapons? Why did she even have such a collection of killing tools?
There was an additional something disturbing that I noticed right away from reports of the shooting: the low 'injury' number. The reason for this was that his weapon was so high-powered, and the ammunition so deadly, that it didn't simply wound. That thing was not built to hurt people - it was built to destroy them. And it downright sickens me to know that there were children on the receiving end of that firepower.
Which brings us back around to the topic of politics. The 'red tape' blocking real progress from being made. The political 'right' defends fiercely the rights of their citizens to 'bear arms'. Being sane, and a Canadian, I have never understood the necessity that the American forefathers felt to arm every one of their citizens. There are, of course, those rare cases where people actually use a gun to defend themselves from home invaders, or bears - and I'm sure that if I were in a situation like that, I would wish I had a handgun ready to use. But how many times has this been taken to extremes? Trespassers being shot? Treyvon Martin, for example, being killed for looking 'suspicious'? The numbers boggle the mind - but history has shown that the bad cases outweigh those where the gun was beneficial and didn't cause a needless tragedy.
However, the main point of the original article was not even to ban all guns. Perhaps, somewhere down the road, American Congress will come to their senses and realise that bears attacks are not nearly as common these days, and that security systems have come a long way since the 1700s. But until then, let's focus on the bigger issue at hand - assault weapons. The American founders, when writing the Constitution, had never even dreamed these killing machines were possible. When they spoke about 'bearing arms', they were referring to muskets. Neither of the examples I have used make assault weapons necessary. In no way is an assault weapon the only sufficient method of defence from a home invader. In many cases, a simple baseball bat or pepper spray are all that's needed. In short, a small handgun would more than enough. When hunting, it's the same thing! People have caught their dinner for centuries using a bow and arrow, and a single-barrel shotgun would again, be quite sufficient to kill a deer. (Side note: despite the fact that my grandfather hunts, I personally do not condone the sport). So a semiautomatic weapon isn't needed in this case, either.
So why are they even legal? Who knows. My friend told me a story of driving through Pennsylvania with his family and passing a bank that had a sign in their window advertising that they would give a free AK-47 to anyone who opened an account with them. I don't even know where to begin with this. In fact, it's so ridiculous that I am praying it was a joke. Because banks should know the dangers of giving people weapons - approximately 5,000 of them are robbed every year in the United States. And that's just money being lost. We should be all the more concerned when it comes to the lives of children.
Many who oppose gun control make the point that outlawing something does not solve the problem entirely. Unfortunately, this is true. Heroin is illegal around the globe and yet there are still addicts found worldwide. However, it would certainly go a long way in reducing the access the general public has to these weapons.
In Canada, for example, our government requires permits for almost every gun purchased (with the recent exception of rifles and shotguns - a topic that inspired much concern and debate) and has prohibited new licences issued for assault weapons, therefore prohibiting people from obtaining new weapons. In addition, there is a law stating that when the owner of such a weapon has died, and the weapon was not willed to a direct relative, the gun must be turned over to the authorities to be destroyed. The last massive Canadian school shooting occurred in 1989. 14 people were killed at the Ecole Polytechniqe in Montreal, and following that, the federal government passed the Firearms Act which refined the already-strict gun control laws. Since then, gun control has only been a minor nuisance. England has similar policies in place, and they too, have a lower shooting rate than the United States.
So why won't our neighbours south of the border follow suit? Who knows. I can't even start to explain all the reasons it's easy for someone in the US to carry out such a despicable attack. Jon Stewart has tried to explain all the problems facing those creating tougher laws - and all he's really able to do is laugh. The NRA contradicts themselves, politicians say the government wants to take their guns, and therefore their 'freedom' - and then turn around and blame the government for not doing enough to prevent such a tragedy. But those same people get to hug their children each night, and don't have a panic attack from the sound of a balloon popping. They didn't have to watch their teachers and classmates die, or have to see their loved ones relive that day over and over again.
I don't even want to fathom the possibility of this ever happening again, but it begs the question - how much tragedy will be enough to make a difference? How many more innocent people have to die before they decide to change their ways? I don't want to exaggerate, I am sure many members of the NRA and Congress are perfectly nice, logical people, and not the gun-toting rednecks they are made out to be. But they're incredibly stubborn on something that should be so simple. What will it take for them to get it? Many of them have children - maybe their sympathies will be brought out if someone shows them the autopsy photos. Or pictures from the blood-soaked crime scene. Wil Wheaton, in his post, even suggested that Congress have to face the parents, siblings and friends of those who died that day - to have to look them in the eye and tell them why their son or daughter is not with them anymore. Will that be enough to bring change to the world? Maybe. But there shouldn't have to be such drastic measures taken. There is one simple truth at the root of all of this: The right of one person to have a gun does not, and should never, outweigh the right of 20 children to have a future.
Let's hope something happens before the rest of the world moves on and forgets - or before something even more unspeakable happens. I know I won't forget. This is something that is going to bother me until the day I die. I know I was not directly affected, but that shouldn't matter. Although I know my own country is considerably safer, I still worry that something like this could happen at my school, at my sisters' school, or at the school where my mom works. Assault rifles have no place in a civilized world. Guns have no place in a civilized world. It shouldn't be this difficult to get rid of them and protect the lives of children.
President Obama was right what he said on the day of the shooting. There is a time to mourn - a time which is still ongoing - and there is a time to act. And the time to act has damn well already passed.
