By now, everyone with a pulse is aware of the schoolhouse shooting down in Arkansas. Even though some of the basic elements of the crime are not yet known, the inevitable dialogue on guns, more specifically gun control, has re-entered the national spotlight and conscience. Our culture has evolved to the point that in the emotional aftermath of tragedies like that in Arkansas are reported, there is a rush to make new laws to prevent reoccurrences. These endeavors are usually nearsighted and ill-conceived.

There is one simple and basic concept that the public needs to chew on for a while: By definition, criminals break the law, so how are new gun laws supposed to stop criminal behavior? Only law-abiding individuals are constrained by such laws. The inevitable consequence is the disarming of the innocent. If anyone believes that making it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase and use firearms is going to make our society a kinder, gentler place, they are living in theory and not practice. In the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin, “They that give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

The Supreme Court has decided that the police are under no obligation to provide for the security or protection of individual citizens; in a country built on the principle of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is inconceivable that the government would greatly restrict the ability for its citizens to defend their right to such pursuits. It is completely illogical for a government that cannot control criminals, drugs or illegal immigrants to claim that it will disarm the criminal element only when honest folks give up their guns also. The actions of two irresponsible preteens are commentary on the decay of morals and ethics, not the lack of gun control.

Chris Mallicoat

Alumnus, class of ’97

Ames