Guns Are Not The Problem with Violent Crime

Yesterday, Toronto experienced its first inside-a-school shooting fatality of a student. The initial reports are that it was caused by some fireworks that went awry and hit one of the students, and as a result, the hit student chased down the other student and shot him to death on school premises.

Toronto's left-wing mayor, David Miller, got on the airwaves and re-iterated the need to ban handguns, as a way to curb violent crime.

Unfortunately, such pat answers to deep stemming societal problems may sound good to liberal voters who are looking for someone or something to blame, but unfortunately, that is not the root of the problem.

Miller says that guns are only made to kill people. That is incorrect. Guns are used for shooting in biathlons in the Olympics. There is a large contingent of law-abiding sport shooters out there, who would never even accidentally point it at a person. These people have gone through the legal process to procure a gun, be trained on how to use it (and its associated safety features) and take steps to make sure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. And guess what, it is not the legal, law abiding gun owners who are the problem. Guns have been around for years, and gun crime has not been at the forefront of our news until maybe the last decade or so.

Here's the problem as I see it, and I will be quite candid here. Look at where the locations most of the shootings take place. With very few exceptions, it tends to be in the rougher areas of town, in the ghettos, in the housing projects, in the poorer areas of town. Case in point? The area in which this school shooting happened yesterday is very near the Jane/Finch intersection, known for its lower income, higher incidence of single mothers, and higher crime rates. You can't debate me on this one - there are copious police statistics that show this. I certainly don't blame the victim for what happened to him, but let's have a closer look here. The victim in yesterday's shooting was reported in the papers today, as having "gotten in trouble" in the past, despite some of his schoolmates who also report that he was a fun kid (of course, people will try to put a positive spin on people - ever notice no one ever says "yeah, that guy was a gangster, mistreated everyone - glad he's dead". From the indications in the paper, he was from a home with a single mom. Which obviously means there is no Dad in the house, no father figure, no male parent able to steer him in the right direction. What was this kid doing, setting off fireworks during the school day at an off-limits construction site?

I am willing to bet one month's salary - yours, not mine, that the unknown shooter came from a similar family - no Dad in the house, mother who works her butt off at a job to provide for her and her child(ren) - which by the way, is very respectable, though it should really be the deadbeat dad who should not have walked out on the family and instead provide for his kids. The shooter has probably had a history of being in trouble, and is probably not a straight-A student.

Part of the problem is poverty. Don't believe me? Look at the tony parts of your city and try to correlate how much crime happens in those parts based on reports, the news, etc. Now look at your poorer areas of the city and correlate how much crime happens there. I am willing to bet that the poorer areas experience more crime? Why? Usually single moms who work, the kids have nowhere to go, no Dad to hang out with, so they establish themselves with a crowd (often not a great one, whose members all come from similar families). They get into trouble, resolve conflict with violence, end up in trouble with the law. Drop out of school. Never really get a job - hang out with others who are in the same boat. Have way too much time on their hands. Commits more crimes. Gets some girl pregnant - takes off on the girl and doesn't have the balls to take responsibility. Cycle repeats.

Now, what's this have to do with guns? These people get their guns (in almost all cases illegally through theft or smuggling) and now they feel like a big man, just like the gangsters in the rap videos in the movies. They have someone piss them off. Clap! Clap! Clap! Take that, punk. Ghetto justice 101.

The other part of the problem is society's general predisposition to violence, and I don't mean just guns on TV and movies and video games. Cowboy and Western movies, Rambo, Terminator and such have been around forever. The 80s was not an era of major gun crime. I should know, because I went to elementary and high shool in the 80s and no one had a gun that I was aware of. I seldom heard of school shootings - actually, I can't recall one. You just didn't get a gun and take it to school those days - you punched each other out after school to solve problems - never was a gun used. Not to say that punching each other out is a great way to resolve conflict, but at least people did not even consider using a firearm.

Part of the problem is media-caused. Look at the willingness to show barbaric videos on TV, like the dead bodies of Saddam Hussein's sons. Hell, the video of the execution of Saddam was in high demand - why? This just de-sensitizes people. There seems to be a fascination on lethal injection lately. Why does the media need to discuss this? Look at the Virginia Tech shootings - all the fascination was on the shooter, his background - they even aired the video where he is ranting like crazy? Why give this the time of day? When al queda or some other terrorist groups beheaded captives and recorded it all by video feed, demand to see this on the internet was high. Why? The September 11 tragedy - planes into the World Trade Centre being played out over and over again on TV - this was an act of violence - why did the media feel it was necessary to run this over and over again, under the guise of some journalistic venture?

Guns are not the problem. The September 11 terrorists used planes to strike their violence and fear. Should we ban planes? Should we ban farm fertilizer and Ryder trucks just because Timothy McVeigh used both on the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995? Should you ban any kind of knife, since fatal stabbings seem to abound in this day and age? How about ropes of all kind, since people have used that to strangle others. Should you ban the car, as people use it as a weapon for road rage? OK, so the argumement may go that knives and ropes and cow crap and moving trucks serve a primary purpose and people use these items in a tertiary purpose when committing crimes, whereas guns are only made to kill. My issue with this argument is that if you ban guns overall in society, criminals will still be able to get them (just like when they banned alcohol during Prohibition) illegally. Now the law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves if needed. Law abiding gun owners can't hunt for food. Law abiding gun owners cannot participate in shooting sports. Banning guns will also give the people who have a pre-disposition to violence another way to kill their victims. Banning guns is not the solution.

The solution is tackling the issue of poverty, anger in particularly young men, the lack of focus on people's mental health, and the media's constant barrage of scenes of violence. Do I think that Hollywood should absorb any of the blame for its music and movies? Absolutely. You leave an impressionable young kid that the only way to fix a problem is to use a gun. The gun is not the problem - showing people on TV and movies and in videos shooting each other senselessly is the problem (this came out abundantly clear when my wife and I, back in 1992-1993 went to see Natural Born Killers in the theatre. It was the first movie I have ever walked out of in disgust - the wanton and senseless violence in that movie was unbelieveable. Not forcing young men to take responsibility for the girls that they impregnate and the subsequent child that is born is the problem. The fact that sleeping around seems to be fashionable in the media is the problem, as that does not teach cause and effect (and the value of people and relationships, especially committed ones like marriage).

Having teachers who are forced by school boards to sit on their hands, and not be allowed to properly discipline a child in his/her care is a problem. As a result of that, the kids don't respect teachers, since they have never developed a healthy fear of authority. If my son ever shows me disrespect, he will get five hard whacks across his ass, no questions asked. If parents weren't so afraid of children's aid and took the time out to properly discipline their kids (and I don't mean using freaking time outs, and such garbage), you'd be surprised by how kids will react. No, they will not hate you. Putting structure in kids' lives is very welcome. How do I know this? I run my Wednesday night kids group (grades 5/6 under a lot of structure. The kids don't get away with anything. I yell at them occasionally but also praise them when they do well (which is most of the time). Now, I never worry about these kids, since they all have a good Mom and a good Dad at home, who already teaches them all this stuff. So my job is pretty easy, but I see the results of good parenting from parents who take the time to discipline their own kids, teach respect, teach values, and teach morals.

The media's lack of focus on those who do good work and provide positive examples in these rougher areas, but instead focussing its energies on profiling criminals and Hollywood bad boys and bad girls is also part of the problem. Not giving these kids a positive outlet for their energies is a problem (one thing our church does really well is the youth outreach to neighbourhood kids - they have a safe environment which they embrace to hang out and have fun).

I want to address one final issue, one that people oftentimes criticize. Violent video games. I can see both points on this one. Have I played shoot 'em up games? Yes. Do I go around shooting people? No. Why? Because I am a grown adult and know what is a game and what is reality. I also am no longer in the teenage or young adult stage where I feel peer pressure and the need to belong or conform. Would I let my kid play the same games? Absolutely not. Why? Because he is impressionable. If he is a teen, I would not have any games like that on my computer - he is under enough pressure at school and with friends as it is. If he gets picked on in school, the last thing I want him to play is a shooting video game. I think this is a distinction that is lost on most people who call for all shooting video games to be banned. I think that, just like movies, there are some games that should not be viewed by any minors at all. Now, there is a side issue about the fact that they can go to their friend's house and watch or play the game. I never said my argument was bulletproof. That's just what I would do.

Ultimately, what can we do with our kids to steer them in the right direction so they don't resort to guns to shoot others? One is to set a good example at home. I impart a non-violent way of life to my son. I don't hit my wife during conflicts, I don't hit other people during conflicts. My wife does the same thing. My son sees my and my wife's example. So far, it's working - he does not retaliate when he is wronged (in general, he doesn't). I will not allow my son to be exposed to any video game that even has a hint of violence (right now, we are playing a game where we capture monkeys with nets). My brother got my son a V-Smile (from Vtech) that allows him to play very educational video games. My wife and I do not discuss violent news items in front of our son. We don't let him hang out with other boys and girls who exhibit violent behaviour (this has been tougher, but I'm pretty firm on this). I will always be there for my boy - I can't guarantee how he'll turn out, but at least he has a good running start in the right direction).