People Commit Murder, Not Guns

Thomas G. Palaima wrote a commentary for the Austin American Statesman titled, U.S. Gun laws allow a Normal day at UT take a Scary Turn. The title is indicative of the feelings of the writer on gun laws in America. Palaima describes his day at UT on September 28 when a gunman came on to the campus an opened fire. The gunman did not kill anyone, but did eventually kill himself. The author describes the amazing Austin police and their response to the situation. But then towards the end of his article he states, “Why is an AK-47 — or any gun for that matter — legal to buy and use?”
Palaima claims that if guns were illegal in America then there would be no more horrific mass killings. I would disagree. Of course the pure speed of a machine gun allows the rapid succession of bullets into a crowded area, increasing the chances of a mass killing. But illegalizing guns is not going to make psychopaths or other disturbed individuals sane. Ted Bundy, Jeffry Dahmer, Gary Ridgeway, Jack the Ripper and Ed Gein all have something in common; they killed multiple people without the use of a gun. In the mass murder category we have Richard Speck. Speck managed to kill eight women in one place without the use of a gun.
Guns do not kill people. People kill people. It takes a severely disturbed person to actually plan and execute a murder of any kind. So a gun may increase their chances of hitting multiple people at once. But would a lack of a gun make them harmless?
I will take the side of the devils’ advocate by going to the other side of the debate now. We all know 9/11 happened without the use of guns, and 3,000 people died. What if the gun laws allowed people to carry a concealed weapon? Would 9/11 have produced more or less casualties? Many people (especially in Texas) argue that all Americans should be allowed to carry guns on their person for instances such as Virginia Tech. They argue that if Americans were all allowed to carry guns then the casualties of such crimes would be lessened.
I believe the writer was attempting to appeal to an extreme liberal view sometimes held by some college students. He described what it was like in the situation being faced with mortality and described the college kids around him. To propose such an idealistic approach to gun laws is unrealistic and naïve. He is basically saying that if we get rid of crack we will have no drug problem.
I argue that, whether I am in agreement or not that we uphold the 2nd amendment of the U.S Constitution which is the right to bear arms. We need to allow people to protect themselves within limits. People should have the inalienable right to feel safe in their homes and the right to protect their property and family. I do not agree with Palaima that removing gun will eliminate mass killings. Removing guns will be just that; removing guns. Removing guns does not take away psychopathic thoughts and actions from individuals who commit pre-meditated murder. It is absurd to blame murder on the weapon instead of the individual.