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.
rafflaw,
Well said!
Elaine,
You may miss the point. The difference in the quantity and quality of the public outrage is the distinction in Bob’s argument – not that it wasn’t brought up on this specific thread. Oops! You had the point all along – “Unfortunately, those who have spoken out against our government’s use of drone strikes in other countries, don’t get much press/media coverage.” – so never mind.
One of the reasons this incident produces such comparatively rawer reactions is showing disjunct thought in not just the media but the public as well over what should reasonably illicit the same if not more outrage over the deaths of children. Another is that guns in our society are an inherently polarizing and emotional subject to most when as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution they should be a matter of cool, calm reasoned reflection.
Gene,
It isn’t the media over-hyping these events and the comments by many, it is the murder of 20 little kids and teachers and staff. The drone killing angle is a red herring. The 30 plus school shootings since Columbine is far beyond what a sane society should accept withou making reasoned changes. Should the drone killings stop, of course, but we can stop both if society takes a stand.
Gene,
“Hell yeah. Because Morgan Freeman understands the underlying causation is the culture of violence, not the culture of guns.”
I happen to think that the culture of guns IS a part of the culture of violence in this country. That doesn’t mean that I believe that all people who own guns are violent by their nature.
The chickens refuse to cluck:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/16/1342641/all-31-pro-gun-senators-refused-invitations-to-appear-on-meet-the-press/
Gene,
“Inconsistent is inconsistent. Find some examples where the drone killings have generated anything near the outrage this situation has and then we can talk about how applicable or invalid pointing out such inconsistency is as a criticism. Just because no one has made the argument doesn’t invalidate pointing out the disparity in reaction as an indication of disjunct thought.”
*****
Just because those of us who advocate for gun control in this country didn’t bring up the drone killings of innocent children/people in foreign lands on this thread doesn’t prove that we don’t think it’s immoral. That’s quite an extrapolation. There have been a number of people and organizations that have spoken out on the subject. Unfortunately, those who have spoken out against our government’s use of drone strikes in other countries, don’t get much press/media coverage.
pete:
I have to say Morgan Freeman’s take makes as much sense as anyone’s. Making these guys celebrities certainly contributes to the problem. Take away the “blaze of glory,” and maybe you take away the “going out” part, too.
everyone:
Like Mike S, I’ve truly enjoyed the depth of commentary on this topic. It’s interesting and like Mike I find myself going back and forth on the solution. Passion, reason, and everything in between. It’s what I like about this blog.
Bravo, brava, and bravissimo.
Bob K.,
“‘the second amendment was meant to protect citizens against government.’
No, it wasn’t. That’s a popular justification for gun-nuts.”
Damn it. Now you’ve made me have to agree with Bron.
Go back and read some of the quotes of our Founders I provided above.
Protecting ourselves from the potential abuses of government was indeed one of the reasons they adopted the 2nd.
Elaine,
“Do you believe that all of us gun control advocates are hypocrites?”
No, but conversely I don’t believe all gun advocates are the devil either yet many gun control proponents have no problem painting them as such.
*****************
JAG,
Inconsistent is inconsistent. Find some examples where the drone killings have generated anything near the outrage this situation has and then we can talk about how applicable or invalid pointing out such inconsistency is as a criticism. Just because no one has made the argument doesn’t invalidate pointing out the disparity in reaction as an indication of disjunct thought.
*******************
pete,
Hell yeah. Because Morgan Freeman understands the underlying causation is the culture of violence, not the culture of guns. I’ve long been a proponent of the idea that the news shouldn’t make poster boys of these kinds of killers. You can report the facts with all the sensationalism. You’ll notice that I purposefully go out of my way not to even use their names. It’s a reflection of the degeneration of the Fourth Estate from news in to info-tianment. An anti-hero isn’t a hero. He’s just a protagonist bereft of the common noble elements found in an actual hero. But the media paints these psychos in such a way that many see them as an anti-hero and they are failing to understand that distinction. Some examples from fiction: Han Solo is an anti-hero but in the part of a secretly noble rogue. A heroic anti-hero i.e. a hero. A lion in wolf’s clothing. Dexter Morgan is an anti-hero in the extreme. His cause seems rational and just with Harry’s Code, but in the end he’s a serial killer and just about as inhuman as you can get without shapeshifting. A reptile that walks like a man.
We need less sensational reporting of these events.
Great catch.
The NRA Surge: 99 Laws Rolling Back Gun Restrictions
In the past four years a barrage of measures across 37 states have made it easier to own, carry, and conceal firearms.
—By Mark Follman, Tasneem Raja, and Ben Breedlove
Wed Sep. 26, 2012
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/map-gun-laws-2009-2012
Excerpt:
Since 2009, the NRA and its allies in state capitols have pushed through 99 laws making guns easier to own, easier to carry in public—eight states now even allow them in bars—and harder for the government to track. More than two-thirds of the laws were passed by Republican-controlled legislatures, though often with bipartisan support.
Some particularly noteworthy laws:
– Bullets and booze: In Missouri, law-abiding citizens can carry a gun while intoxicated and even fire it if “acting in self-defense.”
– Child-safety lock off: In Kansas, permit holders can carry concealed weapons inside K-12 schools and at school-sponsored activities.
– Short arm of the law: In Utah, a person under felony indictment can buy a gun, and a person charged with a violent crime may be able to retain a concealed weapon permit. Nebraskans who’ve pled guilty to a violent crime can get a permit to carry a gun.
– Sweet Jesus! In Louisiana, permit holders can carry concealed weapons inside houses of worship.
– Without a trace: Virginia not only repealed a law requiring handgun vendors to submit sales records, but the state also ordered the destruction of all such previous records.
Bob Kauten:
Well, I think you are wrong.
It was put in place for a number of reasons, personal protection being one of them. Considering we were British subjects at the time and considering we used rifles and pistols to throw them out, I dont think you know what you are talking about.
I also did not bring up drone strikes, although I agree with Bob Esq. that the Constitution is not a urinal puck.
I think he was also making a statement about morality and hypocrisy. Is the death of children in CT. any more repugnant than the death of children in Pakistan?
You say yes, it is less repugnant in Pakistan. Now I dont know about you but I am for following the Constitution and ending our foreign expeditions. I am also for keeping the second amendment.
Meet The Gun Advocates Responding To The Connecticut Shooting By Calling For More Guns In Schools
By Igor Volsky
Dec 15, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/15/1341341/meet-the-gun-advocates-who-are-responding-to-the-connecticut-shooting-by-calling-for-more-guns-in-schools/
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has remained silent on Friday’s tragic massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, even as gun safety advocates are publicly calling for a national conversation about limiting access to dangerous firearms. While information is still emerging about Adam Lanza — the 20-year-old who killed 20 elementary school students, 6 adults, and his mother — preliminary reports indicate that he used at least three guns: two hand guns and a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle. The weapons appear to be legally registered to his mother.
The nation’s most well known gun lobby is nowhere to be found, but other gun advocates are responding to the tragedy by demanding more guns, arguing that had school administrators or teachers been allowed to carry guns into Sandy Hook Elementary, the tragedy could have been prevented:
– “Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered.” [Larry Pratt, Gun Owners Of America]
– “Had Connecticut not had the no guns in school laws….Had the principal, the maintenance man, a teacher, been allowed to keep a gun in their office, maybe just maybe, this would have come out differently.” [Bob Irwin, The Gun Store]
– “I only wish the kindergarten teacher and principal in Connecticut had been armed.” [Dr. Keith Ablow, Fox News]
– “[S]o looking at this tragedy that happened with K-12, we might have to have an armed employee at the schools, that’s a measure, that’s a measure.” [Michele Fiore, Nevada Assemblywoman]
– “Look at what has happened, all these attacks this year have occurred where guns are banned.” [John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime]
– “Well, I believe those of us who are licensed to carry, are responsible people, shouldn’t be prohibited from carrying in schools or other places.” [Steve Dulan, Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners]
Yet even as more Americans now own more guns than ever before and can easily and legally obtain powerful firearms in almost all of the states, mass shootings have continued unabated. 2012 now has the highest number of incidents, with six mass shootings.
The numbers tell the story. In 1995, “there were an estimated 200 million guns in private hands. Today, there are around 300 million” — a 50 percent jump during a period when the population grew by just 20 percent, but gun laws were drastically loosened. In the past four years alone, “across 37 states, the NRA and its political allies have pushed through 99 laws making guns easier to own, easier to carry in public, and harder for the government to track.” Eight states now allow firearms in bars. Permit holders in Kansas “can carry concealed weapons inside K-12 schools, and Louisiana allows them in houses of worship.” Michigan may soon “make it easier for people to receive a gun permit and open up “gun free zones,” including schools.
Since 1982, the nation has experienced at least 62 mass murders in 30 states and in at least 49 cases, “the gunmen obtained the weapons legally, and the majority of those weapons used were semi-automatic.”
TURN OFF THE NEWS…….
Morgan Freeman’s brilliant take on what happened yesterday :
“You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here’s why.
It’s because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he’ll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN’s article says that if the body count “holds up”, this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer’s face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer’s identity? None that I’ve seen yet. Because they don’t sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you’ve just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man’s name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.”
Gene,
“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.”
You’re making an incorrect assumption that those of us who are in favor of gun control don’t give a damn about children who are killed by our government via drone strikes or by other means. I’m for gun control AND against drone strikes. I don’t think we should be killing the innocent in order to take out some evil terrorists. Do you believe that all of us gun control advocates are hypocrites?
Bron:
“the second amendment was meant to protect citizens against government.”
No, it wasn’t. That’s a popular justification for gun-nuts.
The Constitution of the United States was written to provide a federal government. The Constitution provides for peaceful change by representation through elected, and appointed, officials.
Now, think about this…why would the Constitution provide an escape clause? “In case you don’t like the way your representatives vote, you can always violently overthrow the government. The very government established by this Constitution.”
If an escape clause was included, we’d have a Confederacy of Slave States. We don’t. Violent overthrow of the government is treason. The second amendment is not a blueprint for treason.
The Constitution did not provide for a standing army. “Well regulated militias” were provided for, to repel foreign invasion. Not to repel your own elected government. That’s a right-wing fantasy. A murderous one.
I don’t want any more mass murders of school children as collateral damage in protecting right-wing gun fantasies.
And no, the gun-nut problem in the U.S.A. has no connection to drone strikes. Bringing up drone strikes is an attempt to divert the discussion.
Bob…. DO NOT pretend to know what my outrage is…. nor where it is directed……
JAG,
Pointing out inconsistency in public outrage over an equivalence (the unjust death of children) is perfectly valid criticism.
—————————————
Yes… if people here were actually defending the killing of OTHER children… as far as I have seen, NOBODY here thinks this though…… so arguing that we are not being consistent is not applicable….
“Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others.”
Smom:
of course Jefferson was talking about nut jobs killing children. Yes by all means, exactly right. Jefferson thinks that we need crazies killing children so our liberties can be protected.
You insult Jefferson.
JAG,
Your outrage is based on geography and nationality; not concern for children in general. Because if it was, CT would be taking a back seat to saving the next group of kids your Executive is targeting now. Thus the problem with legislating based on emotion.