The last few weeks have me thinking a lot about guns. In the interest of full disclosure, I should reveal here that I have been a gun owner in my life and am historically very leery of efforts to disarm the citizenry. Jefferson famously said that where the governments fears the people, there is liberty; but where the people fear the government, there is tyranny. This is one of his primary arguments for the second amendment to the Constitution. It was also, of course, why Jefferson argued against a standing army. It is interesting to me note that the disbanding of our standing army plays so little in discussion of second amendment rights. It may also be worth noting that Jefferson rarely armed his slaves, though I'm not entirely sure what motivated his decision there.
Yet, despite my desire for an armed citizenry and a disarmed military, I think that the time has perhaps come for me to rethink my position somewhat. I will confess here that my judgment may have become somewhat clouded by the recent events in Newtown, Conn. I have a certain sentimentality for images of frightened children sobbing uncontrollably after their classmates have been shot multiple times with a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. But I recognize the media's attempt to manipulate my emotions through shocking images such as these.
It is hardly fair, after all, to attack weapons such as the AR-15 (the rifle the U.S. military refers to as an M16). The AR-15 is actually banned as a hunting weapon in some states because the ammunition is not strong enough. Wiser state legislatures recognize that it would be extremely inhumane to allow a less-effective weapon to be used against a 250 lb. adult deer. Fortunately for the children at Sandyhook Elementary, the weapon was sufficiently effective in its use against first graders, as the average 40 lb. six-year-old can be felled with significantly less ammunition than his cervine counterparts.
It seems to me that a rational compromise can be reached on this front. If we allow the state to restrict which weapons may be used against game animals, it certainly seems reasonable that they could restrict which ones may be uses against other human beings. I realize that the language would have to be crafted rather carefully, however, taking into account the age, size, and general health of the would-be target. For example, the state could require that those targeting adult males in the prime of life use a 50-caliber weapon, making a clean kill more certain. If your target were kindergarten students, however, a simple 22 might suffice (though the larger caliber weapons would obviously do the job, too). In that particular instance, however, it might be essential to craft code to insist on at least semi-automatic weapons with large magazines, since young children are small and naturally quick and all the more so if startled by the unexpected arrival of a stranger with an assault weapon at school.
The National Rifle Association has been quick to point out that more guns may have prevented the recent tragedy. When I learned that the shooter, Adam Lanza, had taken his mother's legally-purchased hand guns and semi-automatic rifle, leaving her with only two traditional hunting rifles to defend herself against her murderous son, it really got me wondering. What if she had owned two legally-purchased Bushmaster AR-15 rifles? She might just have had a fighting chance herself, and prevented the needless deaths of 20 elementary school children. (I would add here that it is probably advisable to actually own a third rifle as a back-up, as the AR-15 is known for it's tendency to jam when not kept clean. And let's face it: who has time to clean all of those weapons on a daily basis?)
In the wake of the shooting, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre called for an armed officer in every school in America. While the closet libertarian in me may question the wisdom of putting an armed police officer in every school and vaguely wonder if this may be the precursor to the sort of police state our aforementioned third president may have been warning us against, I think LaPierre has a point. He correctly pointed out that we have armed guards at courthouses and airports and this effectively prevents tragedies in those venues. And please spare me the liberal diatribe about the New Jersey gunman who seized an officer's weapon in a police station filled with armed officers, just two weeks after the Newtown incident. The fact of the matter is that in that particular case, the gunman was killed while only wounding three officers. Were it a school and an unarmed criminal had seized an officer's weapon, it is unlikely that he could take out more than five or six children before being shot himself.
This does bring me to another salient point, however. Many in the public sphere, such as Texas Governor Rick Perry, rightly recognize that this does not go far enough. These critics have called for arming teachers. I could not agree more. Like many on the far right, I do not trust the education of our nation's youth to such a lazy and incompetent group as public school teachers, but let me be the first to say that I do trust them with the safe handling and discharge of large-caliber rifles and handguns in America's classrooms.
Yet I cannot help but wonder, "Is this enough?" Clearly, the answer is "no." In the average American classroom there is only one teacher. A savvy gunman would obviously target the teacher first, preventing her from quickly accessing her safely stowed weapon and defending the children in her charge. No, the answer is much more radical, yet ridiculously obvious: we need to arm every single student in American schools.
I know what you are thinking. You are thinking that arming every school-age child creates myriad problems, including the likelihood that some outcast loser (like an Adam Lanza or Dylan Klebold) would use the state-provided weapon to attack other students because he was picked last in kickball. But consider it for a moment: if you knew that the class weirdo had a 44 magnum in his backpack, would you even think of giving him a wedgie?
Is it an expensive proposition? Certainly, but isn't the safety of America's children worth it?
So how are we going to pay for it? Well, I wondered that, too, until I read Mr. LaPierre's comments more carefully.
What is the root cause of this violence we see in America? Clearly, it is neither legal gun ownership nor the availability of weapons with 30+ round magazines. No, it something much more sinister. Hear the words of the NRA spokesman:
There exists in this country a callous, corrupt, and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games . . . blood-soaked slasher films . . . and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."
Digital media creators, actors, writers, directors, singers, and musicians. These are the true culprits in American society.
Guns don't kill people, art kills people.
To pay for the presence of a school police force, the arming of both teachers and students in every school, and the design of a comprehensive marksmanship curriculum, I suggest the complete elimination of school arts programs. These programs are costly and encourage students to "express themselves." It is, no doubt, this sort of self-reflection that leads many of these monsters to unleash their inner demons on society at large. Further, the content espoused by these so-called "academic subjects" include violent music, such as murderous British folk ballads and drug-induced homicidal fantasies, like Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique; the sexualized violence of the dance stage, as evident in Le Sacre du printemps; and canvas grotesqueries, for instance, those by Hieronymus Bosch. Theatre, of course, seems almost designed to inculcate violence in our young people, with the Bard's Scottish play practically a requirement of the high school literary curriculum.
With the complete elimination of school arts programs, those industries will soon dry up and leave our shores for more barbaric countries like Finland or the U.K. We will have no more music, film, or literature poisoning young minds. Our children will grow up knowing only fresh air and the joy of mastering assault weaponry.
I realize there may be resistance to this plan at first, but I can honestly think of no reasonable alternative. I urge the president, Congress, and the U.S. Department of Education to implement this plan quickly, before it is too late.
