The news is littered with all sorts of terrible events these days. In Maryland, seven people have been shot by a gunman (as of yet, uncaptured). In New York, an armed gunman jumped the fence outside the UN and shot seven bullets into the air before being captured by authorities. A week earlier three died in a shooting in an office near Times Square. Shootings have become common and should be regarded as a routine part of our life. After all, what would a morning be without a cup of coffee and a newspaper filled with the latest homicides?

The Maryland shootings are of particular notice because investigators appear clueless as to their source. The victims have all been shot randomly, usually in the midst of their daily routines. A New York Times article shared quotes from scared Maryland residents as they pondered the difficulty of living life knowing that every moment could be their last. The first victim, after all, was merely tending to his groceries outside of a Shoppers Food Warehouse. There is no common ethnicity among the victims and no pattern in the shootings. Chief Charles Moose of the Montgomery County Police suggested that the murders were "random" and said that the challenge now was to "bring rational thought to an irrational situation."

One Maryland resident pointed out the similarity to the situation in Israel where innocent civilians have been routinely murdered in suicide bombings. She said that she felt more "empathy" for Israelis now. Sadly, in a terrorism infested world, random shootings are not out of the question, particularly in a country that inspires such anger from the people of other nations. Suicide shooters may take over for suicide bombers someday, and how could we stop them other than better gun regulation?

This past March, New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof wrote a terrific piece about the second amendment movement at nearby Mount Holyoke College. Kristof wrote about a women's group that finds empowerment by fighting for their second amendment rights. How violent weapons got associated with women's rights is beyond me, but Kristof gets to what is perhaps a more fascinating point: since Sept. 11 gun sales have surged. While my first reaction to this comment is that these are only purchases by insecure citizens who will lock their guns up in the garage anyway, reflecting on statistics doesn't make the situation quite as easy to deal with. There are two sets of statistics that are startling: first, the number of increased gun sales post-9/11; and second, the number of gun-related deaths in America.

The first set of statistics is larger than I would have imagined: The FBI had conducted 455,000 more background checks for gun purchases this year than in the same period the previous year, and 130,000 more checks than a year earlier of applications to carry a concealed weapon. If you figure the U.S. population to be approximately 300 million that means that 0.15 percent of the population of the United States that previously hadn't been inclined toward guns decided they needed guns all of the sudden. That's a scary thought.

But there's another statistic that's far more troubling: the number of gun deaths in the U.S. in 2000. Somehow, this number came in at 26,800. England, which fares worse than the U.S. in nearly every other criminal-related activity, has a murder rate of one sixth of the United States, due to stricter gun controls. Japan, which allows approximately 50 people to own handguns in the entire country, has fared far better. While guns are still smuggled into the country (as many critics argue would happen if gun controls were tightened in the US), there were a grand total of 28 gun deaths (murders and suicides) in 1999. Twenty-eight. That's about 0.1 percent of the number of gun deaths in America, lower than the percentage of additional new gun background checks post-9/11. These are shocking numbers.

There are four reasons why I decided to break up my weekly Iraq articles with a gun-control article this week. First, the Maryland murders are a scary and saddening situation which deserve public attention. Second, the Amherst College Republicans have received a sum of money to learn about the second amendment first-hand by going to a shooting range. Third, the very motivation that propelled so many new gun owners post-9/11 seems to be pervading the minds of those who advocate a unilateral war against Iraq: that we must defend ourselves at any cost. And fourth, a new lawsuit in Brooklyn that may represent a significant threat to the well-being of firearms companies around the United States, as, for the first time, the government has provided comprehensive information tracing gun sales.

I express my condolences to the victims in Maryland and hope that the killer is caught quickly. Whatever the motivation, it's an unbearable crime and strikes at the heart of American life. By killing random people in their daily routines, the Maryland killer is wiping away the model of the American right to a peaceful and worry-free daily life.

While I respect the Amherst College Republicans' vigor in trying to present a different side to the often one-sided and tedious political arguments at Amherst, I take great offense in their methodology. To spend student activities funding to go to a shooting range mocks the lives of the thousands of people that die each year and only helps to perpetuate the killing. While the College Republicans tend to provide interesting arguments on many topics, the second amendment argument is both antiquated and ridiculous. We no longer need guns to protect ourselves from tyrannical rule; if the U.S. government wants to be a tyranny, it will. No rifle can stop a tank.

Then there's ideology and Iraq. I swore to myself that I'd try to leave Iraq out of this article, but it's too pressing an issue to ignore and too obvious a connection to leave by the wayside. When we advocate gun use for self-defense, we seek a weak and very dangerous solution. A gun provides limited protection, while increasing risk of accident, theft or tragedy significantly. Similarly, a war against Iraq will provide some protection (perhaps), but will leave the U.S. open to a whole new set of problems: international distrust, a lack of allies, increased terrorism, increased anti-U.S. sentiment, and a slowdown in the war on terror.

And finally, there's the Brooklyn case which may become monumental in the history of the gun industry. For the first time, plaintiffs have received government information from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms tracing gun sales. Analysts believe that plaintiffs may be able to use the information to prove a "hear no evil, see no evil" policy by gun makers toward gun distribution. Gun makers have used sales tactics for years that represent a violation of American citizens' right to peace and security in their daily lives. Hopefully, the buck stops here.

What's most disappointing about anti-gun control advocates is that, while they condemn murders like those going on in Maryland right now, they still allow them to continue. The facts are clear. But the NRA and gun manufacturers have formed an intelligent special interest group that has played its cards right from the opening hand. It's time that American citizens begin to take some of the responsibility for allowing this to happen and start locking up guns before the barrels get turned around.