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.
An aside: Shootings rant tied to Morgan Freeman is hoax
Bron, imagine the karma coming home to roost in an abuser, when he is going about his daily routine, wondering if the next moment his lights are going to go out. Makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
OS:
yep, a rifle or pistol is a great equalizer in the hands of an experienced operator.
Smom:
the NRA did not do so well this time around.
I have a good friend who is now a college professor. She teaches advanced science. When she was young, her first husband was extremely abusive. I asked her how she handled it, and how she got away from him. She said she told him, “I grew up with guns, and if you lay a hand on me or our daughter again, just remember I can take you out with a head shot at one hundred yards.”
He never hit her again, and shortly after that, he wanted a divorce.
Darren,
Many state constitutions have such clearly spelled out provisions.
” The Republican Party relies as part of its so-called “base” on those who feel especially strongly about “gun rights” and who are, concomitantly, extremely suspicious of any proposals to curb those rights.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who had supported gun control while governor of Massachusetts, sharply reversed his position in order to win the nomination. There is no one within the national leadership of the Republican Party who is at all open to the idea of extending the existing regime of federal regulations involving firearms. Indeed, the expression of such openness would guarantee a struggle over the renomination of any incumbent official in the next party primary.
Given that the Republicans control the House of Representatives, it is almost unthinkable that any kind of regulatory legislation could even get through a House committee, let alone reach the floor of the House and gain majority support.
Will President Barack Obama take a strong lead himself in this area? It is not likely, however sincere and moving he was in his tearful talk to the nation following the news of the massacre. During his presidential campaign of 2008, he emphasized his own respect for the Second Amendment. Like most (though not all) Democrats since the mid-1990s, Mr. Obama downplayed any talk of gun control, lest that needlessly antagonize the so-called “Reagan Democrat” swing voters he was trying to win back to his party, many of whom own guns (as do millions of other Americans).
As a matter of raw political fact, Mr. Obama almost certainly benefited from the 2008 Supreme Court decision protecting the rights of gun owners, for it essentially removed the issue from the presidential debate that year. Had the court, by the same 5-4 vote, upheld the gun-banning legislation of the District of Columbia that was at issue in the case, then it would have figured prominently in the debates. Republican candidate John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin would undoubtedly have emphasized the degree to which they would make sure that future nominees to the Court would be far more protective of gun rights. There was a similar absence of any expressed concern about the role of guns in American culture during the 2012 campaign.
As a second-term president who will never again have to face the electorate, Mr. Obama might be willing to throw a certain amount of caution to the wind, but advocacy of strong gun-control legislation would place all Democrats in Congress in a remarkably tough political position as they contemplate their own races for re-election in 2014.
Political scientists have estimated, for example, that former president Bill Clinton’s insistence in 1994 on an assault-weapons ban as part of a comprehensive crime-control bill directly contributed to the stunning victory by Republicans in the elections later that year. That victory included the defeat of the incumbent Speaker of the House, Thomas Foley, a representative from western Washington State with many pro-gun constituents in his district.
Since that election especially, the National Rifle Association has become one of the most feared groups in American politics. Gun-rights groups in general contributed over $3-million to candidates in the 2012 election cycle, with over $2.8-million of it going to Republican candidates. At least as important as the money, though, is the ability of the NRA to mobilize its members to vote for preferred candidates. Far more of the NRA’s 4.3 million members are “single-issue” voters than are members of gun-control groups.” Globe and mail
Blouise,
“Ahhh … up until the 1960′s all the Justices agreed with my interpretation. That’s about 200 years for me compared to a mere 50 for you.”
That’s about 50 years and the logical rational analysis of the language and jurisprudence leading to the Constitution for me. I believe in poker that’s called an ace high. In law, it’s called legislative intent.
And you should have pork chops the way I make them before you decide on how disappointing that is.
To quote Chris Rock, “A pork chop is my friend.”
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/america-needs-gun-control-but-a-political-brick-wall-stands-in-the-way/article6458239/?service=mobile From constitutional lawyer Sandy Levinson.
Bron, Don’t worry. I don’t think we will pass anything. The house republicans are fully in the pocket of the NRA. Maybe we can get some bills introduced and begin a discussion. We have moved pretty fast on gay marriage so who knows? We need a culture change on guns.
Smom:
would you think your son would shoot you? She could have been asleep, who knows.
we passed the patriot act after 9/11 and look how well that has turned out. now we need guns to protect us from an encroaching police state.
Bron, The Connecticut shooter’s mother was a heavily armed citizen. She did not stop him.
http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen
….”who are taking psychoactive drugs and prevent the sale of guns to them and immediate family.”
NRA already lined up to oppose measures at all.
Now you would have Big Pharma lining up to supress any suggestion that their products don’t cure – or at least effectively manage – whatever it is they are meant to be curing/managing. It might also hurt sales if people resist themselves or family members being prescribed such drugs.
That’s a big tsunami of paid lobbying/propaganda coming right at ya 🙂
In addition, the inescapable logic of a ban on sales to such persons/families is that any existing guns in their posession should be surrendered.
Anyone who genuinely believes that they need to be able to squeeze off 30 rounds in rapid sucession in the vague direction of the scary stuff on TV is very probably in need of professional medical treatment.
This might suggest that anyone in posession of such weapons/accessories or anyone who attempts to buy them should have to undergo a proactive psychiatric/psychological screening – as opposed to a passive background check for previously known conditions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/nancy-lanza-mother-of-gunman-private-home-life_n_2313027.html
“To get guns under control, we start with laws. Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Sen.-elect Chris Murphy acknowledged Sunday that “people want us to do something.” Correct. The Connecticut delegation should introduce a bill to go after the relatively obvious and reasonable steps: assault weapons ban, universal background checks, no high-capacity magazines. The National Rifle Association leaders will object. To hell with them. The right to public safety trumps the right to own an arsenal.” Hartford Courant.
i think the solution is to get rid of high capacity external clips and limit semi-auto rifles to 5-10 rounds that must be fed, by hand, into an internal, fixed magazine. No stripper clips, etc.
Semi-auto pistols could carry 5-7 rounds in an internal, fixed magazine which had to be hand fed.
And put up a national data base of adults and children who are taking psychoactive drugs and prevent the sale of guns to them and immediate family.
Gene,
Ahhh … up until the 1960’s all the Justices agreed with my interpretation. That’s about 200 years for me compared to a mere 50 for you.
It is most disheartening to come in second to a pork chop.
BTW … I find it extremely interesting that none of the 31 Senators who support gun rights would agree to come on Face the Nation and not one single NRA official could be reached for comment. Neither McConnell or Cantor … both big gun nuts, would comment. Cowards all …
If you have ever seen Colbert then you know how he and Sweetness just love the Second Amendment
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/251794/november-25-2009/in–60-seconds—sweetness
Gene:
We made the issue very clear in our (WA) state constitution.
ARTICLE 1 SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
JAG,
Apology accepted.