Two commentators on this station in the last few days have talked about the tragedy of the shooting at Columbine High School. The first spoke of the bestial nature in man that needs to be discouraged and the higher nature that needs to be nourished. She expressed that violence, at least lethal violence, could be kept in abeyance by the restriction of the availability of firearms while the higher nature was being strengthened by education and example.

The second commentator, a local writer, expressed her confusion as to the causes of the violence at Littleton, but she, too, came to the conclusion that if people couldn't get their hands on guns, the violence would be seriously reduced.

This issue, which has come up again and again in the discussion of Littleton, has been expressed as either the root cause of violence or the necessary instrumentality for expressing it. In my opinion, neither of these has a basis in fact. In addition, even if there were "strict" gun control, there is little reason to believe that this would keep firearms out of the hands of those determined to commit violence.

Long before the gun was invented, man did violence to man. There was murder between the first two brothers on Earth, if you are biblically inclined. Man does indeed have a dark nature that can lead to homicide. An argument might be made that firearms provide an easier, faster, and more efficient way to do it. This might have been true when the alternatives were knives, rocks, and baseball bats, but when the alternative is explosives made with readily available materials, the price of wholesale murder becomes very cheap indeed. The worst mass murders in America were committed with fertilizer bombs and with common gasoline. It could even be argued that if the Littleton killers had been more interested in blowing up the school and less interested in face-to-face confrontations, then chances are that even more people would have died.

The other part of the issue is whether or not we could actually reduce the availability of firearms through "strict" gun control. The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1919 and the prohibition of alcohol began a year later. Despite the weight of Federal law, the consumption of alcohol actually increased during the thirteen years that prohibition was in effect. We have been engaged in a "War on Drugs" for nearly three decades, and the supply of illicit drugs still has much more to do with the demand than it does with the enforcement of the laws. It is a law of economics that when there is a demand and a profit to be made, a black market and a supply of contraband will arise. As long as people want guns and are willing to pay for them, someone will supply them. What this means is that "strict" gun control would keep guns out of the hands of people determined to obey the law and leave them in the hands of the criminals and the crazies who are determined to have and use them. If there is any truth in the studies by Prof. John Lott of the University of Chicago, after the arrest, conviction, and incarceration of violent criminals, nondiscretionary concealed handgun laws are the most important and cost-effective means of reducing violent crime. If we pass "strict" gun laws and refuse to pass "shall-issue" concealed carry laws, it will exacerbate the existing imbalance between armed criminals and the unarmed, unprepared, law-abiding public.

Finally, had I had a child at Columbine High School, I would have been very pleased if a number of the teachers had been armed and ready to defend their charges. Armed civilians aren't armed because they're looking for a fight. They're armed so that, at need, they'll be prepared to protect themselves and others from the lightning-strike of unexpected violence.

With a commentary for WCPN, this is Marc Myers.

Back to Radio Commentary Index

Back to Marc's Homepage

This page last changed 05/10/99