Last Wednesday, a Notre Dame student chucked an empty water bottle onto the court in the closing seconds of the men's basketball game against Syracuse, which prompted the referees to whistle a technical foul on the Irish and potentially cost them the match and a berth in the NCAA tournament.

I personally believe that whoever supplied that particular person with the water bottle should be punished. After all, if it can happen at Notre Dame, it can happen anywhere.

That's about the silliest thing you've ever heard, right? Now, read that last paragraph again and replace "water bottle" with "gun" and "Notre Dame" with "Columbine" or "Mount Morris Township, Mich." Odds are many of you would believe that statement then.

By no means am I equating the tragedies of school violence with the travesty of the Syracuse game. I'm sure I speak for the team when I say that when compared to Columbine or Mount Morris Township (where a six-year-old boy shot a classmate last week), the result of the game last week or its implications — or even the game in general — become minutely insignificant.

However, some connections can be made.

The water bottle itself isn't to blame for Wednesday night's incident.

Whoever sold the water bottle isn't. The NWBA, National Water Bottle Association, isn't. Scenes from video games or music videos or movies where water bottles are thrown aren't. The only person at fault was the kid who threw the water bottle. No one disputes that. But when two teenagers plot for over a year to murder their fellow students, fingers are pointed at the guns, whoever sold them, the NRA, video games, MTV, Hollywood — in short, anyone and everyone except Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris.

When a six-year-old grows up in a decrepit home environment surrounded by guns and drugs and then shoots Kayla Rolland, a six-year-old classmate, President Clinton blames the Republican-led Congress: "They have done nothing and meanwhile ... every single day there are 13 children who die from guns in this country."

Gun control advocates believe that their programs can prevent future Columbines. But the 20,000 gun laws that are already on the books haven't stopped anything. What makes them so sure that the 20,001st law will work?

The plain and simple truth is that it won't. Rough and easy proof: The four areas with the strictest gun control laws in the nation are New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Fourteen percent of America's murders occur in these havens of gun-control legislation. Why is that? Well, the phrase may be trite or stale, but "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Common criminals can get weapons as easily as fans can get water bottles — legislation or no legislation In areas where it is next to impossible for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights, the criminals have the market cornered.

But where guns are less restricted, crime goes down. Professor John Lott of the University of Chicago noted that "when state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by five percent and seven percent [respectively]." In fact, the reason why a school rampage in Pearl, Miss. ended was that Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, went to his car to get his gun.

So what can be done? Step one is to properly prosecute illegal uses of firearms. A Syracuse University study found that from 1992 to 1998, prosecutions of illegal uses of firearms dropped 46 percent. However, prosecution has to be done without punishing responsible gun owners.

In 1997, criminologist Gary Kleck estimated that more than 2.5 million people a year defend themselves lawfully with firearms. But no one ever hears about this fact because of the din of the constant drum-beating for gun-control legislation targeted at responsible gun owners.

For example, President Clinton's latest brainchild are so-called "smart guns"— firearms electronically protected so only the adult owner can use them. Why is this even an option? If the mother of the six-year-old in Michigan was a responsible gun owner, these gadgets wouldn't have been necessary. If irresponsible gun owners were punished properly, there would be no need for this legislation.

The Washington Times states, "What matters is who has his hands on the weapon — not the weapon itself." It sounds so simple: throw a water bottle, you're to blame, you get punished; shoot someone, you're to blame, you get punished.

When I was a kid, I was always told that "when you point your finger at someone, you have three fingers pointing back at you." Gun-control activists should heed this advice instead of continuing to push worthless legislation while blaming everything else for today's gun problems.

Mike Marchand is an off-campus junior English major who believes we should find the guy who threw the water bottle on Wednesday night, then throw things at him while he's taking his midterms. This column appears every other Monday and his e-mail address is Marchand.3@nd.edu.

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

• Don't blame guns or water bottles
  
• We all have crossed the line
  
• Don't discriminate in church
  
• Reaction to `Waterboy' is shameful