Recently, I taught a class on gun control and showed my students two Youtube video clips: one a tribute to the Columbine High School shooting and the other from the History Channel's show Top Shot. In the latter, contestants compete for the title of Top Shot shoot various targets using a variety of firearms (handguns, rifles). Once a target is hit, it often causes a loud, fiery explosion along with clapping and cheering from the other contestants watching nearby. Don't take my word for it - watch for yourself.
This is an undergraduate criminal justice class, half the students in which are male. Men love explosions (don't they?). I figured the clip would be a hit. I was trying to show and contrast multiple sides of the issue. Guns as instruments of violent and death. Guns as sport. Is it possible to have legal gun ownership in the country (since the 2nd Amendment isn't likely to get overturned anytime soon) AND reduce intentional assault injury? Or will having guns available, even legally, inherently keep the door open to criminals stealing them?
One student vehemently reacted to the Top Shot video, launching into a mini-rant against the evils of guns. I don't recall all of it word-for-word, but one statement was to the effect of 'No one ever, ever needs an automatic weapon. Period.'
I inquired as to whether there really was nothing he appreciated about the Top Shot video. Was the skill of the marksmen not impressive? The explosions not cool, not even a little? Answer: nope.
The student's reaction reminds me of the gun control/gun rights debate in general. Each camp hears the other, but no one really listens. This is part of why nothing changes.
No comments:
Post a Comment