Fight against terror at home

begins with sensible firearm restrictions

It has been almost a year since a student at Virginia Tech went on a shooting rampage and killed 32 classmates in one morning before turning the gun on himself – one incident in a disturbing, yet growing, pattern of random gun violence in America.
Just this past week, two Georgia students at nearby universities – UNC and Auburn– were slain in unrelated shootings. Last month, at Northern Illinois University, a student opened fire in front of a classroom and killed five young people, plus himself.
And it’s not just happening on school campuses. It seems that in every sector of American society, people are turning to guns in attempts to solve their personal or domestic problems.
In other shootings just this month, six people, including two children, were found shot to death in a Memphis, Tennessee apartment. At a Wendy’s restaurant in Florida, three people, including the gunman, were shot and killed to finish off a domestic dispute. In December, a man in Omaha, Nebraska shot up a crowded shopping mall and killed eight people, then himself.
This is just a short list. In the year 2004 alone, over 11,000 people in America were victims of homicides in which guns were used as the murder weapon. That is astronomically more than in any other industrialized nation––Germany following closest with just 373 firearm deaths the same year.
Firearms deaths are unfortunately a routine occurrence in this country. So where is the outrage on the part of both citizens and lawmakers, the latter of whom could have vast influence in making us safer from gun-wielding maniacs? Is gun violence (particularly the random “going postal” variety in which everyone is a target) not a form of terror, inflicting harm and imposing fear on the civilian population?
Remember the Washington, D. C. snipers of 2002 – a pair of ordinary Americans who picked off about twenty indiscriminate victims in public areas throughout the city from the trunk of their car, essentially shutting down the city for two weeks?
Sadly, these kinds of shootings are just as easy now as they were at the time they were committed – if not easier. Airport security may check every pair of socks in your suitcase as you try to get on an airplane, but no one appears to care who is walking around a mall, a campus, or your subdivision with a coat full of concealed firearms.
While the federal government has passed several laws limiting traditional freedoms since September 11, 2001 in the name of fighting “terror,” none of these measures have made us safer from the criminals or disturbed individuals (terrorists of another sort) living in our neighborhoods and attending our schools.
And one reason for that is pretty clear: elected officials fear the wrath of the powerful lobbyists whose fanatical motive is to defend the right of every single American to bear whatever arms they prefer. Would we let any American, regardless of past history, drive whatever vehicle they wanted on the roads?
In 2001, new federal laws eliminated the ban on assault weapons and gave gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits. The gun lobby had long sought these measures, and, no doubt, the gun industry has profited from these gifts.
It is true guns have long been used by criminals in America to carry out crimes such as robberies and burglaries. But random school shootings are largely a phenomenon of the 21st century, started by the infamous April 20 bloodbath at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999.
There are some fairly no-brainer restrictions that if applied to the distribution of guns still would not seriously impair American gun rights. Particularly, laws that keep guns out of the hands of juveniles and lunatics would make Americans safer. Authorities might start by enforcing existing laws. Many gun dealers still sell firearms to known convicted felons. That is a federal crime.
Where is an anti-terror crusader when you need one––someone to ask us again to accept freedom limits in order to gain a little safety? Sadly, the terror we would be guarding against in this case is homegrown.