Guns and Ammo

Last week's tragedy apparently perpetrated by 41-year-old Jiverly Wong in Binghimton, New York again brings up the debate on gun control that many people seem to rekindle at the end of such incidents. For those who don't know, last week Wong entered a community center where English classes were being taught for new immigrants. Barricading the back door with his car Wong then proceeded into the center and began firing and killing whomever he could find. Before taking his life he had killed 13 people and injured scores of others. Recent reports indicate that Wong apparently fired nearly 100 bullets in the span of a few minutes (98 to be exact) and that he still had plenty of more ammo left in the bags that were found around his neck when his body was found.

Now gun control advocates point to this and state that it's the perfect instance of showing why people shouldn't have guns. They will debate endlessly about how it is avoidable incidents like this that make it necessary to restrict the number of guns on the street and to curb their availability. On the flip side, many gun advocates say that this is actually the perfect reason why licensed guns should be allowed in greater numbers. Indeed in Texas at present there is debate over whether or not concealed handguns should be allowed on college campuses. The agruments being that if another incident like Binghimton, Virginia Tech or Columbine happen, people will be able to defend themselves. I tend to think that this is more of a case of escalation.

What I mean by escalation is that if someone is allowed to carry a gun someone will want a bigger gun. If someone carries a single-shot rifle then someone will want to have a fully-automatic rifle. The tendency of the human ego just proves that there is no end or limit to what someone will want to 'prove' they are better than someone else. I have thankfully not been in a situation like those listed above but I can safely say that I'm not all for guns on campuses or schools. I understand the logic behind it and do agree that people should have the rights to carry guns if they so desire but to introduce guns to learning institutions is just a bad idea. Bullying is what is believed to have led to the shootings at Columbine so by carrying a gun will that act as a deterrent or an easy means to ending the argument?

In the case of Wong, despite the fact that he was only earning $200 a week, he managed to get his hands on enough ammo to set new records. Already in the media they are referring to his spree as the 'new Rambo'. Does anyone find the fact that he was still able to load up on so much ammo strike anyone as a bit scary? There are assumptions that he may have bought a lot of the ammo via the internet or over a period of time, but regardless, the fact that he carried a 9mm Berreta and an .45 handgun just proves that he had way more than he needed if his only purpose in owning a gun was self-protection. I understand that having more than one gun doesn't make someone a criminal but I ask again, should someone be able to buy multiple guns with no overwhelming need for them?

I understand that gun shooting can be a recreational activity for many people but for the average Joe, I don't think it's a necessity. I mean other than for recreational purposes how often do you actually need to fire a gun to defend yourself? I don't think there are that many people who can point to an instance since owning a gun where they've had to go cowboy and defend their home and hearth from marauding bandits. Some argue that by allowing people tons of guns but making ammunition expensive is the way to go and in a certain way it make sense to me. It's kind of like what's happening with cigarettes. The actual cost of cigarettes is not all that much but when you look at how much is paid in tax it's no wonder that so many people have cut down on the amount of smoking they do. Maybe that's the way it needs to go to prevent further tragedies like last week.