By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
The horrific events in Newtown, Connecticut have left us all with a sense of shock and helplessness. Twenty elementary school children dead, six educators slaughtered, and a place we all like to think of as a safe haven from the misery of the world polluted by horrific violence wrought by weapons more properly used on a battlefield. Politicians from President Obama to New York Mayor Bloomberg have called for “meaningful action” to combat gun violence which is endemic to America.
But does this mass murder of innocents present the right case to support effective gun control? From what we know now the answer is “no.” The shooter, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, was a troubled teen who suffered from either Asperger’s syndrome or a personality disorder according to the New York Daily News. One family friend described the young man, saying, “This was a deeply disturbed kid. He certainly had major issues. He was subject to outbursts from what I recall.”
Lanza also had strange permutation of the syndrome in that he was impervious to normal stimuli. Another “longtime” family friend said Lanza had a condition “where he couldn’t feel pain. A few years ago when he was on the baseball team, everyone had to be careful that he didn’t fall because he could get hurt and not feel it.”
Asperger’s syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) which allows the sufferer to maintain high academic and cognitive functioning but handicaps social interaction. It is the classic high school brainiac who is unable to ask a member of the opposite sex out on a date. The cause is unknown but certain genetic markers may be present to suggest that is its origin. Thus, Lanza may have acted from a motivation he had little control over and which no amount of gun control or mental health legislation could control.
Additionally, the guns used in the slayings were purchased legally by Lanza’s apparent first victim, his mother, Nancy. Lanza stole the weapons — a .223 Bushmaster assault weapon*, and two semi-automatic handguns, a 9 mm Sig Sauer, and a 9 mm Glock — after murdering his mother and thus began his rampage. The simple fact is that no gun control measures either on the books or reasonably under consideration could have stopped such a disturbed person from acquiring these weapons if he was willing to kill to get them.
As much as many of us would like to see guns regulated at least as much as cars or liquor, the facts here do not present the best case to achieve this goal. The American love affair with guns is seemingly getting stronger with sales of firearms setting new records. Gun manufacturers and their minions at the NRA have succeeded in scaring many Americans into believing that Obama and the Democratic Party have a secret agenda to disarm the public.
In fact, the public’s support for gun control has been on a steady decline according to polling conducted by Pew Research. Even the school mass murder at Columbine registered only a bump of support which quickly vanished. The chart below (from the Huffington Post) graphically demonstrates the public’s attitude about guns in an era of distrust with government and the political process.
It would take a paradigm shift in the culture to create the political will to take on the Second Amendment. It is a telling — and perhaps damning — fact that even the death of 20 children under age 10 is simply not enough.
Source: CNN; New York DailyNews; Huffington Post
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
PSs:
Our good friend, slartibartfast, has provided a link on the effectiveness of the federal ban on assault weapons. It’s good reading. Here it is: Did the federal ban on assault weapons matter?
*Also commenter, Roman Berry, (9:19 am) has provided some context for the term “assault weapon.”
Thanks, guys.
JAG,
Pointing out inconsistency in public outrage over an equivalence (the unjust death of children) is perfectly valid criticism.
All in all this has been an excellent blog and its thread has been marked by good arguments on all sides. Having read the all, including my own, I find myself confused as to what is right. My own feelings support the right to near arms, even though I don’t have a gun and also believe that the people who run the NRA are insane and venal.
Yet many arguments regarding a tighter control of weaponry are persuasive in light of the seeming increasing frequency of these attacks. Part of the problem is that supporters of the right to bear arms come in many flavors: from total loonies, to people who fear attack, to hunters, to target shooters, to Constitutional supporters, yo those who feel the people need to be armed in case things get so bad we need to revolt. On the other side there is a similar spread of thought between those who think we should restrict and/or ban firearms completely.
I must ruefully admit that I personally can’t figure out a solution, which would accomodate the viable arguments on both sides of this divide. I think this is true because the problem is larger than the specific issue of gun control and some here have alluded to it, whether consciously or not. The problem really devolves to the myths that drive US society and the presence within it of very many psychologically damaged people. Between these two facts of American existence lies a country that is running amok with conflict and confrontation. We Americans ignore the reality of our governance and mainly play pretend politically since the time may have run out where the public has any effect on running things. Destructive myth accepted as reality and destructive people with power are making such tragedies as this commonplace occurrences and leaves us only tears of sadness and frustration at the wreckage around us. Don’t mind my moroseness, ……..carry on.
I find it to be perfectly rational and reasonable when illustrating a hypocritical double standard vis a vis the value of the lives of children differentiated by being lives instigated at private albeit evil and/or insane hands versus lives taken by governmental action in a foreign land.
———————————–
these are two TOTALLY different situations and call for totally different remedies…..
If you want to bring up the children being killed by drones then submit a blog post….. let us discus this……
and fact is… NOT ONE person here has said that they are NOT heart broken over the children being killed by drones…..
BUT, NO matter what….
what will help fix the school shootings will NOT even come CLOSE to addressing the Drone strikes…….
they are just TWO different issues that have to be handled differently…..
Like I said…
“Boo hoo; ya had me, then ya lost me.”
Oh, I don’t know. If the deaths of innocent children is sufficient reason to change law and policy, where is the outcry to do something about the deaths of those 170 plus children from drone strikes?
And if we were truly rational in our approach to protecting innocent children, shouldn’t we first address the fact that the Executive branch is now actively killing (non-American) children?
Or, shall we just be brutally honest and admit that Americans reserve their moral outrage for the killings of American children?
I find it to be perfectly rational and reasonable when illustrating a hypocritical double standard vis a vis the value of the lives of children differentiated by being lives instigated at private albeit evil and/or insane hands versus lives taken by governmental action in a foreign land.
If you hate this guy for killing kids? The actions in Pakistan should provide equal if not greater outrage but much of the public seems to be okay with letting that slide without a lot of public hand wringing.
I guess out of sight really is out of mind.
They weren’t our kids. Were they?
Is it a hyperbolic argumentation technique? Sure. But a valid one.
Bob,Esq.
1, December 16, 2012 at 4:40 pm
“As regards civilian casualties, on August 11, 2011 a report of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism said, “The Guardian published some of the pictures, we have obtained…as many as 168 children have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan during the past seven years.” While rejecting the CIA’s false claim, the report disclosed, “It is a bleak view: more people killed than previously thought.”
Besides, a report of the New America Foundation revealed that President Obama has “authorised 193 drone strikes in Pakistan, more than four times the number of attacks that President Bush authorised during his two terms.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/killing-civilians-obamas-drone-war-in-pakistan/5315661
Integrity? What’s that?
—————————————————————————
I like reason. I like rationality. I despise hysterics.
—————
and HOW reasonable and rational is bringing up a WHOLE different subject in a debate??????
Amen!
NRA claims ‘massive Obama conspiracy’ not to ban guns
Posted on 09.23.11
By David Edwards
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/nra-claims-massive-obama-conspiracy-not-to-ban-guns/
You just can’t please some people.
In the eyes of National Rifle Association (NRA) executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, President Barack Obama’s decision not to pursue gun control legislation is a “massive conspiracy,” and just another reason not to give him a second term.
“[The Obama campaign] will say gun owners — they’ll say they left them alone,” LaPierre told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday. “In public, he’ll remind us that he’s put off calls from his party to renew the Clinton [assault weapons] ban, he hasn’t pushed for new gun control laws… The president will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he’s actually been good for the Second Amendment.”
“But it’s a big fat stinking lie!” the NRA leader exclaimed. “It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country.”
“Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools and we are not fooled,” La Pierre declared.
“Sotomayor, Kagan, Fast & Furious, the United Nations, executive orders. Those are the facts we face today… President Obama and his cohorts, yeah, they’re going to deny their conspiracy to fool gun owners. Some in the liberal media, they are already probably blogging about it. But we don’t care because the lying, conniving Obama crowd can kiss our Constitution!”
justagurlinseattle,
I like reason. I like rationality. I despise hysterics.
The reason we hate Scalia for his “moral feelings” argument is because feelings have nothing to do with reason or law.
Brother Gene,
Could I get an “Amen” per the bat shit crazy irrationality of the Huffington Post per this issue?
You’re about as rational as the Huffington Post has been during the last two days.
———————————————-
Wouldn’t World Net Daily be MORE to your liking?????
🙂
But don’t worry SWM,
You’re about as rational as the Huffington Post has been during the last two days.
SWM,
Your arguments are bereft of integrity. You’re angry at a world that allows little (American) children to be killed.
Temper tantrum is appropriate.
Bob, Esq. Don’t want ya. I like slarti better. He is my scrabble buddy. 😉
DonS,
Sure, I got emotional when I listened to news reports about the killing of 20 small children and members of that school staff. I thought of the horror they all experienced during the last minutes of their lives. I thought about their parents and families…their classmates and colleagues. I cried. That said, I have held my views about gun control for a long time…like you and Swarthmore mom. This school massacre didn’t change my position.
I’d add that it seems to me that many gun advocates are extremely emotional about their right to bear all manner of weapons and ammunition. Some freaked out because they were afraid that the tall black man in the big White House was going to take away their guns/gun rights.
I’ll ask: Who appears to be more emotional on the subject–the gun control advocates or the gun rights advocates?
We don’t have an emotion-detector mechanism on this blog so I can only assure you, again for myself, that my logic, which perhaps is intensified, is consistently held.
———————————————————-
BRAVO, DonS…
myself as well….
I am NOT anti guns…. I am just sick of people saying that their Liberty Trumps ALL….. That is a DANGEROUS place to go… and actually we are here…. 100 round magazines???
Crazy people with stockpiles of weapons????
what do the NRA advocates think is TOO MUCH????
Bob, Temper tantrum? Good day.
Sinatra: “Boo hoo; ya had me, then ya lost me.”
http://www.hulu.com/watch/3531
Bob, Esq. Obama has not done anything to restrict gun rights. We have to do this without him. He really has nothing to do it with yet and as far as I know he has offered tears but no proposals. Headed out to a holiday party.