Although a recent Media Matters post lamented the failure to mention 'gun control' in relation to the Fort Hood shooting, the breaking news of an office building rampage in Orlando, Florida which has left one dead will no doubt serve as a catalyst for a renewed interest in the debate between gun control advocates and their opponents.
Gun rights advocates have already begun to point to these tragedies as examples of instances where an armed citizenry may have prevented or lessened the severity of a tragedy.
Gun control advocates have seized upon the killings as further proof that what is needed is fewer guns, not more.
The issue is not as clear cut as the positions of those on the opposing ends of the spectrum. Guns have been used in work place violence, and guns have been used to prevent attacks.
Focusing on a narrow aspect of a problem as complex as workplace violence does nothing to clarify the issue.
What is needed is an exploration of the underlying causes that contribute to tragedies like these, rather than superficial debate about having more guns or fewer guns. Guns do make it easier to kill, yes, but only for those with the motive or the predisposition.
In order to understand tragedies like these, we must move beyond the surface skimming so common in mainstream reporting, and explore the depths of workplace stress, anomie, undiagnosed mental disorders in military personnel (in the case of suspect Major Nidal), and a host of other interrelated topics that cannot be so easily defined.
Feel free to comment and discuss below.
If you liked this article, you may also enjoy:
Using Fort Hood tragedy to advance agenda
Comments
you are right about getting past the issues of whether we should have more or less guns. But rather how to actually identify troubled people and prevent these things from happening. even if there were 5 people there who were armed and willing to stop him they wouldn't have the courage or they could have harmed more people do to a lack of experience with firearms. There are citizens who could have stopped this man with a gun because they have the experience to take him down without harming anyone else. What we need is either more extensive ways of checking on people to prevent themselves from harming themselves or others.
This writer claims "Some nations have even higher rates of gun ownership than the United States and experience lower rates of gun violence." CHECK THE FACTS! The U.S. has the highest gun-ownership rate in the world!!!
The rules of grammar call for the use of "fewer" for things you
count individually, such as guns, and "less" for things you measure, such ammunition. However, since you have given this a lot of thought, perhaps you mean there are so many guns that it is impossible to think of counting them. Perhaps you are right. The police may think there are tons of guns out there.
Personally I don't think people need handguns. As you point out there are many underlying causes to crime. Factors that stimulate criminal use of handguns, such as drugs and alcohol, are not easy to eliminate. The best way of preventing guns from reaching criminals is to strictly limit and control distribution.
"Personally I don't think people need handguns."
That's why the people who founded this country didn't write a "bill of needs". But don't give up! There are countries where the government allows the people to have only those things the government feels they need. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable if you moved to one of them.
Corey, good article. These issues need more, and fair, scrutiny and discussion.
But note that unlike 20 years ago, when such crimes would have ONLY brought calls for more gun control, nowadays shootings like this spur arguments and justification for an expanded right to defense and the bearing of arms. Think about it ... with each school shooting, the voices arguing for campus carry grow stronger and gain more traction.
A recent article on the Ft. Hood situation discusses how the military's "gun free zone" policies are inadequate for the security of the people on bases.
Nidal Hassan entered a room full of people trained to kill other people (the likes of Hassan). It is ironic that the government, who trained them, then chose to keep them unarmed. Hassan knew that.
Thanks for the comments and the free grammar advice. My point for writing this article wasn't to advocate for or against firearms control, rather to point out that the issue is not as central to the narrative as advocates on both end would like to make it.
Most peoples that I know here in Texas have a concelled and carry licence and all of them know how to shoot properly and safely and practice regularly, I wonder where Vickers get his ideas that if 5 people that are armed would not have the courage to stop a maniac pointing a gun a them? Obviously Vickers has never owned a gun and probably should not ever.
As a U.S. Marine Corps sergeant currently stationed in California I can check out from our armory anything from handguns, light assault rifles w/grenade launcher, medium machine guns, all the way up to heavy machine guns. Granted, Major Hasan is a non-infantry pogue, but surely even army shrinks can get their hands on weaponry, at least a service rifle and pistol. I personally believe all servicemen/women should have the option of carrying a privately owned concealed sidearm while on base, or anywhere else, at all times.
Whatever we all may think, the current 'system' whereby the right to bear arms trumps virtually every othe right does not appear to be working. How many Fort Hood type incidents need to occur before we try a different approach? How can we justify the production and sale of these 'cop killer' automatic hand guns?
Well, Ex-Mil, first of all, from your clueless comment I seriously doubt that you are actually "ex-military". So that makes you a liar. Then, typically for a clueless liberal, you ask a question that has an answer you will never "get", because you don't "get" what the problems are. The first and most obvious problem was the military's total failure to deal ahead of time with the miscreant who perpetrated the crime, when they had plenty of warning that this guy was dangerous. The second problem is the unbelievably stupid policy of keeping military personnel disarmed (hence creating a gun-free zone) on a military base in a time of war so that military people could not defend themselves from attack!! I won't respond to your third sentence because anyone using the phrase "cop killer" regarding firearms or ammunition identifies himself as terminally brainwashed by the gun ban lobby, and therefor unworthy of any attempts to be educated about firearms.
Winchester very logically says:---"Personally I don't think people need handguns."--- Very astute, well thought out opinion, Mr. Winchester. Hmmmmm, I wonder if any of the folks Maj. Hasan shot could have used one - or the brave police officer that shot him? With geniuses like you running the country we'd have-------just what we've GOT!!!
Mr. Winchester also says:---"The best way of preventing guns from reaching criminals is to strictly limit and control distribution." ----Another gem of wisdom from the grammar correction guy. Well, with over 20,000 gun control laws on the books, maybe, just maybe, gun control just doesn't work.
the fort hood masacre is not about gun control or workplace violence. this was a premeditated act of war/terror by a RADICAL MUSLIM TRAITOR. I've had about enough of this political correct attitude that demands we avoid the obvious. We are dealing with a group of people who view those of other religions as sub-human infidels, yet we tip-toe around them and hope we don't hurt their feelings. this was a US army base not a high school, guns should have been everywhere.
Well, bob, it IS about gun control because the military brass in their infinite stupidity have fallen victem to gun banner logic, namely, the idea that preventing their own people from keeping and bearing arms for self defense(a constitutional right bought with the lives of military personnel BEARING ARMS) on base somehow keeps them safe. This incedent is not the first to prove that their gun ban logic is false, but for reasons best known to themselves they don't (or won't) get it. Unbeleivable!!! but true.
Sorry, misspelled "unbelievable".
Sorry again. Looks like I misspelled,"incident", too. Say, when is examiner.com going to get spellchecker?
Agreed.
We need to look at the root causes of violence rather than focus on inanimate objects used in acts of violence.
hi my name is billy bob and i like guns. we should all have guns so we can kill those bad men that try and steal our wives plus they make cool sounds when you use them
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!