Positive Change Spurs from the Understanding of a Whole

     In Gary Kleck’s essay There Are No Lessons to be Learned from Littleton Kleck talks about our focus on mass murders and our need to find reasons for and preventative measures to stop this kind of horror from occurring again when there is most likely no way to prevent it. Kleck also talks about the effects excessive media coverage of extreme violence and how it clouds the statistics which show violence is, as a whole, on the decrease. Kleck goes on to talk about how laws and preventative measures are put into place after mass-killings when they make up such a small percentage of the homicides yearly. He says that in most cases looking for preventative measures will most likely not be effective in decreasing the majority of homicides that occur each year.
     I believe that Kleck’s intended audience is anyone who feels that these reforms and changes need to occur because violence is on the rise. The purpose of this essay is to shed light on the fact it is not productive or relevant to focus preventative measures on unusual horrific acts of violence because these acts are very rare compared to the “ordinary violence.” With this purpose in mind, Kleck forces the public to think and use a critical eye when filtering through the information in the aftermath. This essay accomplished this task well because Kleck was able to first create ethos, then address the audience’s need to make a judgement, and thirdly rationalize the misuse of politicians and advocate groups inductive reasoning to exploit the situation for gains.
     Looking into Kleck’s history surrounding Criminology, it’s easy to see that the man is very educated and knowledgeable when it comes to the Criminal Justice field. Even before looking into his background, Kelck’s writing conveys knowledge in the way he easily sets up a timeline regarding mass US murders. Kelck also identifies all the debates regarding reasons for these killings to happen which shows that he has an understanding of the whole situation instead of just his own opinion.
     Kleck had one sentence that instantly created ethos for me. I feel Kleck grabbed the audience when he said, “The purpose of this essay is not to sort out which diagnoses are correct. Many of them are plausible, and some are probably even accurate…” (Ackley, 211) This is a great use of pathos because Kleck did not debunk anyone’s opinion on the reasoning for the massacre; he simply asked the reader to open their mind past that reason and look at the situation as part of a whole with regards to violence in general because focusing on the one horrific incident does not take into account the big picture problems that are occurring 99 percent of the time.
     The last part of the essay really solidified Kleck’s stance on judgments and preventative measures when he showed the flaws in the inductive reasoning used to create gun controls. All the changes that were made were completely irrelevant to the situations at hand but the government and anti-gun activists were able to exploit the massacre and emotions regarding it to make strategic gains. Kleck uses the example of the proposal to restrict sales at gun shows. Kleck points out that most often the guns used in mass-killings are obtained through theft and not sale. He says, “Under both Colorado and federal law, she would have been eligible to purchase the same guns from any gun store.” This really shows how putting restrictions on gun shows is irrelevant to the murders because it was not a trait from all the massacres listed and just happened to be her choice of purchase. It was not the only place to legally acquire a firearm.
In the end, people need to take these incidents in stride. Easier said than done I know but when people are able to grasp the whole picture instead of just a horrific snapshot, better decisions can be made to help cut down on gun violence.
     Canada had a mass killing in 1989 at École Polytechnique. It did spur a change in gun control in Canada but for a whole. The incident lead to tighter gun control laws which were credited for minimizing casualties at another school shooting. Canada passed Bill C-68 also known as the Fire Arms Act. It encompassed gun training, applicant screening, new rules for gun and ammunition storage and registration of all long guns which are rifles and shotguns. This act allows the police to seize guns from homes where serious domestic disputes have been reported which is where most crimes of passion spawn from.
     This act also incorporated a screening process which restricts a person who has a criminal record for any violent crime within the previous five years, been treated for a mental disorder involving violence, and a history of any other violent behaviour from obtaining a FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate). It is also mandatory for a photograph of the applicant to be taken and they are to provide two references. There is a mandatory 28 day waiting period to obtain a FAC, an extended application form to collect more background information and the applicant must show the ability to safely handle a firearm. As you can see this change did not just make a solution for the Montreal Massacre but also incorporated elements to minimize “ordinary” gun violence. I believe this is what Kleck wants the American people to consider instead of just a solution to put a horrific incident to rest.
     This is a heated topic and I would love to hear some opinions. Now that the Conservative government is adamant about the repeal of the long-gun registry which has been credited with success against gun violence, what side of the fence do you sit on and why?