A Case for Change

The events that unfolded on the Virginia Tech campus fifteen days ago have sparked numerous debates about what steps could have been taken to prevent such a horrible tragedy. On the morning of April 16th, a 23-year-old student embarked on a shooting spree, killing more than 30 people before taking his own life.

It can be argued that the school didn't do enough to encourage the shooter to seek psychiatric help when it became apparent two years ago that he was mentally unstable. On the other hand, it was not in the school's power to force counseling upon an adult who was deemed not to be a risk to himself or others. It can also be argued that campus security could have prevented the second set of shootings by issuing a warning about the first. Then again, there was little evidence to suggest any danger of a second attack, and campus police were wary of raising red flags and causing panic for no reason. They also concluded that students would be safer staying inside the classroom than running across campus hysterically.

In truth, the school acted in the best way it could given limited information; systemic deficiencies were only brought to light after the fact and with the benefit of hindsight. It is now the school's responsibility to devise a more effective method of ensuring students' safety in such dangerous situations, but ultimately, this tragedy could have been prevented altogether if the shooter had not been able to obtain a gun in the first place.

In a country as developed as the United States, it is a shame that we are not equipped to offer universal health care, but are prepared to allow almost anyone of eighteen or more years to purchase a gun. NRA lobbyists might argue that the best way to face the danger of gun violence is to promote our second-amendment right to personal protection, but wouldn't the more preventive measure be to offer better access to mental health professionals? How does society benefit more from lax gun laws than from affordable medical help? The solution to gun violence is not more guns, and those who pose the greatest risks tend to be those that are most in need of more accessible, financially-viable health care.

And while I'm on this rant, why is it that an eighteen-year-old can purchase a gun but can't consume alcohol? The rationale behind enforcing a minimum drinking age of 21 is that, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the benefits are "life-saving." Hmm. Wouldn't tighter gun control have "life-saving" benefits too? Just a thought.

Sadly, Democrats in recent elections have, in the interest of winning more votes, become less dogmatic about the need for stricter gun laws. Many have even softened their stances, arguing more in favor of "gun safety" than "gun control." In fact, last year a pro-gun Democrat won the seat of junior Senator in a campaign against an incumbent pro-gun Republican in a state that is historically pro-gun. Now I'm not pointing any fingers, but that state starts with "V" and ends with "irginia." Go figure.