Abstract
The issue of mass shootings has been aggravated over the last century in America. While the right to keep and bear arms is protected under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, different states have created their own regulations that are independent of the federal gun law; some states established laws that are more restrictive than the federal firearm law, while other states have laws that are less restrictive than the federal gun law. There are conflicting outlooks on the matter, raising questions about the Second Amendment and the varying laws among the states.
Biography
Sally was born in Suwon, South Korea in October 18, 2000, and came to study abroad in the United States in 2014 . She is currently a senior in Wakefield School in Virginia, The Plains. She will major in Business in University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, where she will be attending in the following years.
Five Questions
-
What is the relationship between mental health issues and mass murderers?
-
What are the solutions to the issue of mass shootings in the United States?
-
How is the Second Amendment interpreted in different ways?
-
How are guns obtained legally and illegally?
-
Do school shooters fit a specific profile?
Informative Speech
​
In the wake of mass shootings, the media tended to focus on two things: banning certain kinds of weapons and keeping weapons out of the hands of certain kinds of people-those who have previously been diagnosed of mental illnesses. The public and the media generally assume that mental illness of the perpetrator is the major cause of mass shootings, the implication being that only a mentally illed person would commit such brutality. According to a poll from ABC News and The Washington Post in 2016, 63 percent of the 808 respondents have answered that they believe mental illness to be the major cause of the mass shootings (Craighill and Clement). This is true in some cases. The perpetrator of Virginia Tech shooting, Seung Hui Cho, who shot and killed 32 people, was previously diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder and received special education throughout middle and high school (Knoll and Annas). However, there is still lack of scientific evidence to support the idea that America’s gun shooting problem is rooted in mental health.
In fact, research suggest that the opposite is true- that they are not harming us, we are harming them. According to Gun Violence and Mental Illness, “only a small proportion of school shooters have a psychotic mental illness” and “mass shootings at school are not impulsive acts, but rather the product of careful planning” (Gold and Simon). For example, the Bath school disaster, the deadliest mass murder in school in United States history which left 38 elementary school children and 6 adults killed, was committed by the school board treasurer Andrew, Philip Kehoe, who has never been diagnosed with mental illness before. After being defeated in Spring 2016 election for township clerk, Kehoe (Knoll and Annas).
Research carried out by the National Institute of Mental Health, which accounted for socioeconomic status and substance abuse of the 10,024 people in Los Angeles, California, St. Louise, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, indicated that if we were to eliminate the risk of people with mental illness carrying out violent crimes, the number of violent crimes in United States will only drop by about 4 percent (Knoll and Annas). A more recent national data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services discovered that only 3 to 5 percent of violent acts can be attributed to people who have serious mental illnesses (Gold and Simon).
The media continues to blame the society and continues to vilify the mental ill and to scapegoat them as being the primary cause of gun violence when there are number of factors (like suicidal rates and social networks) that are far more likely to be associated with shootings than with mental illness (Metzl and MacLeish). We should not stay out from the issue simply saying “It’s mental illness.” We should stand up for the issue because it’s mental illness. As Martin Luther King once said, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
​
Annotated Bibliography
Craighill, Peyton M. and Scott Clement. “What Americans Blame Most for Mass Shootings
(Hint: It's Not Gun Laws).” The Washington Post, WP Company, 26 Oct. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/26/gun-control-americans-overwhelmingly-blame-mental-health-failures-for-mass-shootings/?utm_term=.5e984cc79901.
This article suggests that mental health policy is a better solution to solve mass murders
than stricter policy. It also compares statistics to provide evidence for their claim that Americans should not blame the mental illness for mass shooting.
Knoll IV, J. L. and G. Annas, “Mass Shootings and Mental Illness,” in Gun Violence and Mental
Illness, ed. L. H. Gold and R. I. Simon.
This source provides common misinterpretations and evidence-based facts to prove that
mass shootings and mental illness have little correlation. While there are some who has mental illnesses who cause mass murders, but mass shootings by serious mental illness is still rare.
Metzl, Jonathan M., and Kenneth T. MacLeish. “Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics
of American Firearms.” American Journal of Public Health 105.2 (2015): 240–249.
PMC.
This source also suggests that gun control does not make mass shootings better, but actually worse. It also suggests that mental illness does not cause many murders and provide possible solutions for the problem.
Persuasive Essay
On December 14, 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed twenty children, six adults. The shooter was identified as 20 year old Adam Lanza. He was found dead inside Sandy Hook Elementary School of a self-inflicted gunshot wound after the responders arrived at the school. This incident was the deadliest school shooting, and fourth-deadliest shooting in United States’ history. The shooting prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, including proposals to make the background-check system universal, and for new federal and state gun legislation banning the sale and manufacture of smart guns. ("Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting: What Happened?").
The United States stands out as the world’s wealthiest nations on gun ownership with a rate three times higher than the second highest country, Canada. As of now, there are more than 393 million civilian-owned guns in America, which is enough for every man, woman and child to own one and still have 67 million guns remaining. Moreover, there are about 150,000 licensed gun dealers in the United States (Ingraham). Such dramatically large number of guns allow almost anyone to obtain them easily.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (“Second Amendment”). There has been an ongoing debate over the meaning of this Second Amendment. While the opponents of gun control maintain that the Second Amendment grants an individual’s right to bear arms, supporters argue that the amendment only addressed cases of militias. In addition to the federal law, the state governments have their own laws that regulate firearms. These gun laws vary greatly between states, with each state taking a different approach to the issue. In some states, gun laws are less restrictive than the federal, and in other states, they are not. Currently, forty states follow the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution that protects the right of the citizens to own and bear arms, and some of the states, including California, Minnesota, Maryland, Iowa, New Jersey, and New York have stricter laws, not allowing the citizens to own and bear arms. (“Gun Laws By State: The Complete Guide ").
The problem is that easy access to firearms has increased gun violence. According to a recent article, “every day, 100 Americans are killed with guns and hundreds and hundreds more are shot and injured.” Data shows that “one-third of gun deaths are homicides” and “access to gun increases the risk of death by homicide by to times” (“Gun Violence in America”). It is also found that people have a greater chance of dying from a mass shootings at school or place of business. “According to FBI data from 2013, incidents in schools and businesses represent 7 out of 10 active shootings,” and “some of the country’s most high-profile mass shootings have occurred in those kinds of places: Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech and San Bernardino” (Willingham and Ahmed). In the United States, the minimum age to legally buy or sell alcohol is 21, but anyone 18 years or older can purchase a rifle. Though the regulation is more restrictive in the case of pistols, they can still be purchased by anyone 21 years or older after a simple background check when finding no record of felony convict, psychopath, or drug addict. In fact, “it was revealed that Texas Church shooter Devin Patrick Kelley managed to legally purchase guns despite being blacklisted for a domestic violence conviction in 2012, it appears that measures to prevent convicted felons from purchasing guns at one of America’s 64417 firearms retailers don’t always work” ("How Easy Is It to Purchase a Firearm in the US?").
The United States uses a database called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to search through their customer’s records. It scans three federal databases, including the National Crime Information Center, the Interstate Identification Index and the NICS Index for a match. Only if the purchaser has been convicted of a felony, or misdemeanours with sentences exceeding two years, or has been declared “mentally defective” by a court, then he or she will not pass the background check. The customers are also asked to fill in a form that asks for their basic information, such as their name, address, place of birth, race and citizenship. This form also ask questions such as “are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any other depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?,” and “have you ever been committed to a mental institution?” ("National Instant Criminal Background Check System" ).
There are multiple approaches to the problem: ban guns completely, allow them only on necessary occasions, enforce the gun laws more strictly, and make smart guns, firearms that can detect its authorized user(s) through fingerprints, available (Carey). However, there are concerns for each of these solutions that are proposed. The problem with banning guns completely is that there are too many exceptions, such as police, military, etc, to make it a reality. If they were allowed to these people, the power dynamic would be changed. Technically, the police’s job is to protect people from danger. In other words, when you call the police because you are being assaulted by someone and you need help, you are not inviting potentially deadly violence into your home. You are just calling the police to help you protect yourself. In addition, police officers in the United States shoot and kill hundreds of people each year (Lopez), and guns are not always necessary in all of these cases. In the United Kingdom, “more than 90 percent of the capital’s police officers carry out their daily duties without a gun.” This shows that guns are not necessary for all police officers, and that there could be other ways to handle situations ("More than 90 Percent of Police in London Don't Carry Guns. Here's Why”).
The solution that most people propose for the problem with gun violence is to have a stricter background check.
The problem with this, however, is that there are a number of ways to obtain guns through private owned markets.
Finally, making smart guns, guns that allow only the verified users through fingerprint, have been proposed recently. The problem with smart guns, however, is that most American mass shooters had access to use their own firearm, and “smart guns won’t stop a mentally ill person from being able to use their own gun, or a person determined to use a gun to find a way to use one.” Moreover, experts are unsure if smart guns can work. “Julia Wolfson, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan School of Public Health who has studied gun violence prevention policies, said the data simply do not exist to argue that smart guns can save lives” (Basu).
Gun laws today are getting looser and looser when it comes to who can buy guns and handle them without a license. The fact that, by the laws of United States, anyone 21 years can walk into a gun shop and buy a weapon under 1000 dollars is completely wrong. America's obsession with guns is little more than paranoia and a fear of change, and while some individuals may offer compelling arguments of why the law should stay, it's undeniable that a majority are simply afraid of change.
Annotated Bibliography
Basu, Tanya. "Will This Smart Gun Solve America's Gun Problem?" The Daily Beast. The Daily
Beast Company, 08 Jan. 2018. Web. 20 Jan. 2019.
This source provides information about smart guns and problems associated with making them available in the country.
Carey, Teresa. "Smart Guns Exist. Why Aren't They on the Market?" PBS. Public Broadcasting
Service, 24 May 2018. Web. 19 Jan. 2019.
This source explains why smart guns are unavailable on markets and some useful purposes of smart guns. It suggests that smart guns should be made accessible to people.
"Gun Laws By State: The Complete Guide " GunsToCarry. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2019.
This source provides details of laws in each state in the United States. It includes all the updates regarding gun laws.
"Gun Violence in America." EverytownResearch.org. N.p., 28 Jan. 2019. Web. 21 Jan. 2019.
This source explains the seriousness of gun related problems in America and explains pros and cons of gun control.
Ingraham, Christopher. "There Are More Guns than People in the United States, According to a
New Study of Global Firearm Ownership." The Washington Post. WP Company, 19 June
2018. Web. 20 Jan. 2019.
This source suggests that there are way too many guns in America, and that it has caused increased gun violence in this country.
"How Easy Is It to Purchase a Firearm in the US?" Euronews. Euronews, 08 Nov. 2017. Web. 28
Jan. 2019.
This source includes statistics that show that there are many guns in the United States, and
suggests that reducing the number of guns could reduce the gun violence in the United States.
Lopez. "American Police Shoot and Kill Far More People than Their Peers in Other Countries."
Vox.com. Vox Media, 14 Nov. 2018. Web. 20 Jan. 2019.
This website includes details about gun violence among police in United states. This source suggests that police do not need guns.
"More than 90 Percent of Police in London Don't Carry Guns. Here's Why." NBCNews.com.
NBCUniversal News Group, n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2019.
This source provides an example of a country where the police do not use guns. London is one example and it suggests that police can do their job without guns.
"National Instant Criminal Background Check System." FBI. FBI, 03 May 2016. Web. 20 Jan.
2019.
This source provides details of the background check system in America when
purchasing a gun.
"Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting: What Happened?" CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 21
Jan. 2019.
This website provides a detailed timeline of the Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting, and a short biography of the suspect, Adam Lanza.
"Second Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute, 10 Oct.
2017. Web. 19 Jan. 2019.
This source provides the Amendments of the United States Constitution. I looked into the Second Amendment from this website to support my argument.
Willingham, AJ, and Saeed Ahmed. "Mass Shootings in America Are a Serious Problem -- and
These 9 Charts Show Just Why." CNN. Cable News Network, 06 Nov. 2017. Web. 28
Jan. 2019.
This source explains why mass shootings are a serious problem in the United States. It compares mass shootings in the United States to other countries and provides detailed statistics.
Lesson Plan Essay
In the wake of an endless nightmare of recurring mass shootings, there has been a controversy over the regulation of gun ownership in the nation. The core of this heated debate brings the nation’s attention to the Second Amendment of the Constitution which reads that “‘[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’” (Strasser). The Second Amendment has two parts: the first part states that a state militia is a necessary part of national defense, and the second part refers to the right to keep and bear arms. The question of how the two parts relate is something people are still debating.
The Supreme Court shall, in interpreting the constitutionality, make a ruling on the basis of the principle of originalism or non-originalism. The supporters of originalism argue that the role of the Supreme Court should be limited to interpreting the Constitution as implicitly stated in the Constitution. In other words, the interpretation of the Constitution of the Supreme Court should be strictly based on the meaning of the sentence itself or the relevant legislative history in the Constitution. This method of interpreting the Constitution is the basis for conservative figures to claim gun ownership as constitutional rights based on the Second Amendment. On the other hand, proponents of non-originalism see the Constitution as a living document, evolving with the times. They claim that the Constitution should not be focused on the constitutional text itself, which is not bound to reflect the changes over time. They say that it was not the Founders’ intention either to keep the Constitution and interpret it as is (Calabresi).
The constitutionalists failed to reach concrete agreements in many areas at the time of ratifying the Constitution, and therefore some of the most important parts of the Constitution are believed to be either vague, ambiguous, or too specifically written (Levy). On the basis of this logic, the non-originalists argue that the Constitution should be a living document, not a static one, and therefore support the flexibility of the Supreme Court judging in interpreting the constitutionality of laws rather than following the procedural due process, which requires the government officials to follow fair procedures in order to prevent depriving anyone’s rights of life, liberty, or property (“Originalism vs. ´Living Document’”). For instance, in the issue of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy approached the issue from a non-originalist standpoint. The court ruled that although the Constitution does not specify the right to wed between homosexuals, the right to marry is interpreted as the value that the Constitution intends to protect by the right to freedom of the individual prescribed by the Constitution and that the constitution can grant such a right to an individual (Vloet).
Looking over the Supreme Court’s decision on the interpretation of the Second Amendment in the past ten years, it appears strongly adhering to the originalism stance. In a recent series of gun control cases, the Supreme Court defended the right of the individuals to carry and bear arms for self-defense. For example, in the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Second Amendment in a 5:4 ruling that the Washington D.C. gun ownership regulation law, which prohibits citizens to carry loaded guns, violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution (“New Originalism: A Constitutional Scam Dissent”).
Whereas the court ruled against the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) under federal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) expanded the Second Amendment to state jurisdiction. The court ruled that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms protected under the Second Amendment cannot be restricted by The Fourteenth Amendment, which states that “‘[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws’” (Dale).
In addition, the Supreme Court held once again the interpretation of the originalism of the Constitution on the Second Amendment in the ruling of Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016). The Massachusetts Supreme Court convicted the plaintiff of possessing an electric shocker, and ruled that the weapon did not exist at the time of the enactment of the amendment could not be protected by the Second Amendment despite the ruling of the previous Supreme Court case, which ruled that all portable weapons were within the category protected by the Second Amendment (Root).
The Second Amendment clearly reflects the times in which it was conceived. In the 1780s, when the Constitution was enacted, the United States had just gained independence from the British Empire and were able to close the conflict between the existing states (“1780's America - The History and Origins of the Constitution of the United States”).
During this time, the constitutionalists and the majority of leaders judged that the ability of the new federal government to maintain security would not fully protect individual citizens, and therefore, granted the bill of rights, which includes right to gun ownership to the individuals, at that time as the rights that are required to protect the lives and property of individuals and their families (“Originalism vs. ‘Living Document’”).
However, the times have changed too much for this idea to justify itself, and it is difficult to find, for instance, areas that are less than the federal and state administrations now. If the Supreme Court were to apply the non-originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment, taking into account the changing times, it would be possible to present a different view of the case concerning gun ownership (Epps). Despite the non-originalists’ assertion that the interpretation of the Constitution should change in accordance with the current views of the world, the general consensus holds that the Supreme Court is expected to make rulings as explicitly written on the Constitution including the gun-related issues ("Originalism and the Second Amendment”).
Recently, many people are calling for reconsideration of the Second Amendment. In contradictory to the originalists’ claim that gun ownership is the basic rights of the people as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, and by law, no one has the right to restrict this basic right until the Constitution is revised, the non-originalists makes a point that the Constitution is a living document, and therefore, should be interpreted correspondingly to the world’s changed views. While there have been minor efforts to prevent gun-related issues, such as restricting gun usages and enforcing the background check, there has been no definite way to ensure the reduction of gun violence, and the debate as to the interpretation of the Second Amendments have been vainly and unresolvable.
Annotated Bibliography
Calabresi, Steven G. "Whitepaper On Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation." On
Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation - On Originalism in Constitutional
Interpretation. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2019.
The source explains the contrasting theories of constitutional interpretation with Originalism and Living Constitutionalism. It also lists ten purposes that underlie the United States Constitution and provides a detailed explanation for each of the listed purpose.
Dale E. Ho, Dodging a Bullet: McDonald v. City of Chicago and the Limits of Progressive
Originalism, 19 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 369. 2010. Web. 21 Mar. 2019.
This paper provides information about McDonald v. City of Chicago, an important Supreme Court case in understanding how the rights of the citizen to keep and bear arm cannot be restricted by the state under the Fourteenth Amendment. Unlike District vs. Columbia which ruled in favor of Washington D.C. gun ownership law, this Supreme Court case ruled that the States had no right in depriving the rights of the citizen as protected under the Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Epps, Garrett. "The Second Amendment Does Not Transcend All Others." The Atlantic. Atlantic
Media Company, 08 Mar. 2018. Web. 21 Mar. 2019.
The author of the source voices his opinion on gun laws. He supports the Non-originalism side, arguing that the text and context of the Second Amendment do not give individuals unlimited right to bear any type and number of guns.
Levy, Ken. "The Problems With Originalism." The New York Times. The New York Times, 22
Mar. 2017. Web. 21 Mar. 2019.
This source explains the flaws of the theory of Originalism. The author of the article argues that during the time when the Constitution was written, there were conflicts involved in reaching final decisions, and therefore parts of the Constitution is intentionally written as though it is unclear.
"New Originalism: A Constitutional Scam Dissent." Dissent Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar.
2019.
The source explains that there are two sides of the theories behind the interpretation of the Constitution, and then explains the Originalism theory of the Constitution. It also explains the “New Originalism,” which presents a different view of the Constitution. The main idea behind this theory is that the original meaning of the Constitution is different from the historical meaning of it.
1780's America - The History and Origins of the Constitution of the United States." Google
Sites. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2019.
This source provides detailed background information of the time the Constitution was written. The author explains that during the time when the Constitution was passed, the United States has just gained independence from the British Empire, and with the new federal government, the leaders believed that the rights of the citizens would not be protected, and therefore needed to include Bill of Rights.
"Originalism and the Second Amendment: The Constitutional Case for Limiting Public Carry
ACS." American Constitution Society. N.p., 09 Apr. 2018. Web. 21 Mar. 2019.
This source discusses the Heller v. District of Columbia, a Supreme Court case that ruled that the individual’s right to bear arm is protected under the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Though this Supreme Court ruling brought up a heated debate about the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court judges ruled based on the Originalism theory that the Constitution should be understood as it is written.
"Originalism vs. ‘Living Document’" Swindle Law Group. N.p., 29 Oct. 2017. Web. 21
Mar. 2019.
This source presents two different views of the Constitution, originalism and living document. It presents the background of the time the Constitution was written and how people’s understanding of the Constitution differed throughout time.
Root, Damon. "Supreme Court Vacates Massachusetts Ruling That Found Stun Guns Ineligible
for 2nd Amendment Protections." Reason.com. Reason, 21 Mar. 2016. Web. 15 Feb.
2019.
This source includes information about the Supreme Court cases that referred to the Second Amendment. Specifically, it provides detailed information about the Massachusetts ruling, which found guns illegal under the Second Amendment.
Strasser, Ryan. "Second Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. Legal Information
Institute, 05 June 2017. Web. 04 Feb. 2019.
This source states the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and discusses the different interpretations made by the people with opposing views on guns. It also discusses important court cases that call attention to the Second Amendment.
Vloet, Katie. "Two Views of the Constitution: Originalism vs. Non-Originalism." Charles
Chatman - National Registry of Exonerations. N.p., 22 Sept 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2019.
This source explains the originalism and non-originalism using Supreme Court cases as an example to show how the Constitution can be interpreted in different ways. It also refers to the Second Amendment to explain the different views on it.
Fourth Assignment
Fifth Assignment
FADE IN:
INT. COURT ROOM
JUDGE ANDERSON reads his court decision to ANDREW CUMMINS
JUDGE ANDERSON
After having conducted the required weighing process and analysis, this Court finds that the state of Virginia has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstance is associated with first degree murder. The court therefore finds that a sentence of death by legal injection shall be imposed upon Mr.Cummins for the aggravated murder of 17 adolescents attending Chesapeake Bay High School as stated in count one of the indictment. Court further orders that the death penalty be carried out by appropriate authorities upon May 15 2019.
The JUDGE hits the gavel three times
The SPECTATORS clap after the decision
INT. BEDROOM (CUMMIN’s Flashback)
Alarm goes off as ANDREW CUMMINS reluctantly raises his arm to violently press the snooze button on his alarm
MOM
(yells from downstairs) Andrew you need to get up for school! You have a meeting with your English teacher this morning to talk about your grant! Don’t be late, Love you! And Happy Valentines Day! (mom leaves house)
ANDREW
(pulls himself out of bed wearing all black grabs his backpack and stumbles out of his bedroom door) (under his breath snarky voice) I’ll be there on time for my meeting today.
(Andrew puts his backpack and a duffle bag into the back seat of his car and drives to school).
INT. SCHOOL
Andrew walks into his first block English class early, his teacher, Mrs. Starling, looks up from her desk
MRS. STARLING
Oh! Andrew good I’m glad you came to class early, I wanted to get a chance to talk to you about your application for the Maccabee writing scholarship. I know you’re reluctant to submit your short story, but I think you’ll have a good chance your writing shows real potential.
The bell rings, students file into class.
ANDREW
I don’t think I’ll be applying, I’ve run out of things to say (Andrew walks away, puts his backpack on his chair and excuses himself to the bathroom)
By the lockers ANDREW sees a fire alarm, he checks around him to see if he’s alone then pulls the alarm and runs out of the school
EXT. SCHOOL
ANDREW opens the duffle bag in his car and pulls out a .44 Magnum then lies down on the backseat of his car and takes aim as the students walk out of the school.
INT. Court room
BAILIFF
All rise. The Virginia First District Court is now in session, The Honorable Judge Anderson is persiding
Everyone in the courtroom stands, the room is packed the stand is full of jurors giving sly looks to Andrew, the bleachers behind Andrew are packed with people taking videos of the courtroom
ANDREW’S LAWYER
(whispering) Are you sure you don’t want me to examine the jurors, we could find some who are more sympathetic to your case
Andrew: No. There shouldn’t be anyone on this Earth who can be sympathetic to me, I killed SEVENTEEN kids, there is no excuse for that and I am more than happy to take responsibility for my actions, this trial is only a formality.
The trial continues over the next two weeks, as both sides call witnesses, and present evidence the jury hardens towards Andrew as he does to himself, finally after what feels like months of torture to Andrew the jury has come back from their decision and his punishment is to be read aloud to him.
JUDGE
This court has come to the conclusion that in the case of Andrew Cummins vs. Virginia Schools Andrew Cummins on the accusations of 17 counts of murder in the first degree on the students of Chesapeake Bay High School the jury has ruled unanimously guilty on the part of Andrew Cummins.
Judge bangs his gavel three times and the Bailiff removes Andrew Cummins from the court.
Andrew and his lawyer walk out the courtroom into the blinding light of the outside world Andrew will never see again a wave of reporters crash over him overwhelming him with questions.
REPORTERS
Mr. Cummins why did you plead guilty… Why did you commit this crime… do you believe your trial was fairly executed… will you be challenging your sentence in appeals court.
Andrew was brushed past them with ease as he got into the cop car he smiled, he knew he would never be able to take back what he did, but staying in jail for the next few years before his death he would have time to work on his forgiveness before the sweet release of death.