I remember vividly two years ago on April 20 taking the T back from Harvard Square, lying down in a friend's dorm room, and watching the evening news. That was the night of the Columbine High School shooting, in which 14 students and one teacher were killed and 23 other students were wounded. Since then, there have been several additional school shootings and, of course, the continuous though little-noticed bloodshed in poor urban communities.
The arguments around gun control are all quite hackneyed by now. The National Rifle Association (NRA) quips, "Guns don't kill people - people kill people". Their opponent, Hand Gun Control Incorporated, retorts, "Guns don't kill people - people with guns kill people," and nobody is any more intelligent or informed than before.
I was surprised at how little debate there was after the most recent shootings - it seems as if people are accepting the status quo. Considering this, perhaps we should be more realistic and consider the alternatives to gun control. Here is my proposal:
Since many high schools now use magnetometers, perhaps we could extend this to elementary school. Sure, it would slow things down as ten-year-olds have to have their metal lunch boxes searched, but it is a small price to pay for our children's safety.
To discourage violence, schools should adopt random searches of clothing and lockers. More laws need to be drafted, lowering the age people can be tried as adults. I suggest we set the new minimum age for felony charges to five. Three for misdemeanors. Stricter punishments should be adopted for parents who fail to lock up their guns.
As the deterrent effect of prison is still too abstract, I suggest we cut off the hands of perpetrators (surgically and painlessly, of course, so as not to be cruel or, well... that unusual) as a warning to other careless individuals. Repeat offenders should be castrated to prevent reproduction and further aggressive behavior.
Three strikes should be lowered to half-a-strike, and public executions should be brought back. The famed "Old Sparky" could be brought to the center of Times Square, to give as clear a message as possible. The problem with the death penalty nowadays is that it has become too humane. Those who break the law should be drawn and quartered instead.
Next, in particularly high-risk schools, students should be issued bulletproof vests, helmets, and dog tags with their textbooks. Teachers should teach safely behind two-inch plexiglass and possess effective riot-control equipment. All students should be trained in the art of self-defense and disarmament techniques to effectively deal with any emergency that arises.
Furthermore, thousands of National Guardsmen should be called out of reserve duty to patrol the halls, armed with assault rifles and batons. Anyone appearing suspicious would be subject to immediate apprehension and detention. At the same time, students should be searched for drugs (including a body cavity examination) - a solution that kills two birds with one stone.
As a preventative measure, students entering kindergarten should be genetically profiled to identify high-risk cases. Those found to be genetically below par should be taken to special education centers where they will be psychologically conditioned to enter a catatonic state even at the thought of firing a gun.
Lastly, all children should be taught how to use firearms (the NRA actually advocates this) and should be issued .22 caliber handguns upon the age of 14. In the same way that the chance of war is reduced if two sides have nuclear weapons, this proposal will certainly make any potential mugger think twice (this argument is tossed around, as well).
These measures, though expensive and unprecedented, could very well be the only alternative we have to gun control if we, as a nation, truly believe our homicide rate is unconscionable. Adopting them will be difficult politically and will take time, but they will in no way infringe on the Second Amendment.
But wait, gun control does not necessarily infringe on the Second Amendment! According to the text of the Constitution, the Second Amendment provides that a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." This wording was interpreted in United States v. Miller (307 U.S. 174, 1939). According to the court, the amendment protects only state-sponsored "well regulated militias." The right to bear arms only applies only to such organizations, not individuals.
Former Chief Justice Warren Berger in a 1991 interview called the belief that the Second Amendment provides blanket protection for gun ownership "One of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word 'fraud' - on the American public by special interest groups that I've seen in my lifetime."
Mr. Berger goes on to say, "The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the state armies - the militias - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapons he or she desires."
In other words, maybe it is possible to constitutionally limit gun ownership. Imagine that! But, until we reach the point when Americans end their love affair with guns, I let my proposal stand. Although the NRA talks about gun control as an issue of freedom, I think it is more an issue of fear. Americans have such a profound fear of intruders that they would keep a handgun by their beds and face the greater statistical chance of it being used against their own family than an attacker. Who is more free, someone in the US who owns a gun but lives in fear of being shot or someone in London who does not need to worry about guns at all?
