The Next Time Someone Says Newtown Is Not a Political Issue, Ask Them if the Sky is Blue…

The Next Time Someone Says Newtown Is Not a Political Issue, Ask Them if the Sky is Blue…

It is highly likely that this person is hallucinating and will tell you the sky is iridescent green or maybe yellow. It is this type of a-political thinking that gets us Americans into trouble time and time again.

Author : Jenn M. Jackson

Author's Website | Articles from

It is highly likely that this person is hallucinating and will tell you the sky is iridescent green or maybe yellow. It is this type of a-political thinking that gets us Americans into trouble time and time again. Everyone seems to think that the real danger to American democracy is the polarization of the parties. False. The real danger is the floaters in the middle who really have no clue what is going on in their own backyards. Why are they dangerous? Because their vote counts just as much as everyone else’s but they can’t see the forest for the trees. Tragedies like Newtown, Columbine, everyday in Chicago, the Trayvon Martin case, and the killing of Jordan Davis are indeed a cultural problem. We have an extremely violent culture which glamorizes rape, murder, crime, and deviance. But, since when are politics and culture mutually exclusive?

I was taken aback by the number of tweets, Facebook posts, and other social media messages that I saw in the aftermath of the Newtown tragedy. You may have heard by now but, on Friday, a gunman, now identified as Adam Lanza, armed with 2 military grade hand guns and over 100 rounds of ammunition, unleashed a fury of wrath on an elementary school this morning killing at least 28 people including himself. Twenty of those killed were small children. He was said to have mental ailments. A few months ago, a gunman killed and injured 70 movie watchers in Colorado. And over the years, we have heard countless stories of single gunmen shooting college kids, churchgoers, and the like. And, at no point have gun laws gotten any stricter. But this is not a political issue?

When asked about this event, President Obama was apprehensive to immediately call for gun control measures.

“We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this regardless of the politics.”

But, his choked up presence made it very clear that he too understood the gravity of this situation. It is the duty of his office and his peers in Congress to “take meaningful action” and while everyone continues to sit on their political hands, innocents continue to be shot down by gunmen. The overwhelming aversion to “politics” is due to the negative partisan politicking that we have all become far too accustomed to. But, this doesn’t have to be our legacy. And, the President’s call makes it extremely plain that these political actors know exactly what needs to be done. Anything else is just pretense.

Why This Can Only Be a Political Issue

Some have said that times like these need prayer. I myself am a Christian and find this response to be wholly inadequate. I believe ALL situations in life, whether good or bad, need prayer. But, to think that our civic duty in times like these is to pray is yet another reason why we are facing these issues right now. Imagine, you see an accident on the side of the road and 12 other people see it too. What would you all do under this prayer prescription? Well, you’d all go home and pray. Privately, in the safety of your own homes, you would simply pray.  No one would call the police or pull over to the side of the road. No one would check to see if there were survivors in the car. No one would lend an actual, physical helping hand to those in the most need. You know, the victims. It suffices to say that sending additional messages up to your individual deity would not save anyone’s life if said person were in imminent danger. So, why is it consistently recommended as a long term solution?

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:

 ”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.”

Under this law, a “well regulated militia” can bear arms. Last time I checked, there were no wars being fought on American soil. So, whom exactly is this militia fighting to protect? And, how many people are they expecting to “protect” themselves from if they are stocking up on machine guns and an arsenal of assault weapons? Really? This is not Call of Duty. There is literally no purpose for a machine gun in a civilian’s household. Period. And, the only way to thwart further proliferation of assault weapons is through ample, well-thought out gun policy. You know, public policies. They are the nice things that give order to society. They guarantee that people will all drive the same direction on the road or risk being punished in a court of law. They ensure that kids have the right to go to school and not be beaten up by their teachers. They do great things for us. So, why can’t we tighten them on guns when we can clearly see we have a problem controlling ourselves?

Calls for Humanity ≠ Calls for Action

But you know us Americans, we love our freedom. We’re gun-toting, wild animal killing, countrymen who need to have an arsenal in our home. Right. What animal do you kill with a semi-automatic assault rifle holding more that 10 rounds of ammunition? That animal is called a human being. In another post on this site, it was asked have we lost our “humanity.” My question is, at one point in this nation’s short history were we ever humane? During slavery, WWI, WWII, Iraq, Afghanistan? When? We have only ever subscribed to “humane” dealings when we’ve fought each other tooth and nail to do so. So, why do we expect humanity now?

This country has become desensitized to violence. Homicides are commonplace. And though this tragedy is now the second most devastating shooting in our history, it will only add to the ranks of tragedies unless we actually do something about it. From 1994 to 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban made it slightly more difficult to obtain these killing machines. This makes sense since of the 61 mass murders since 1982, the majority of the weapons used was semi-automatic or assault weaponry. And in almost fifty of the instances, the weapons were obtained legally. In the case of Newtown, the killer’s mother legally owned the guns he used to kill her, himself, and 20 students at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Since the ban on assault weapons was allowed to expire, the number of casualties in these horrific events has increased. Again, how is this not a time for politics?

I know you have heard the term, “guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Right and stairs don’t hurt babies. Babies hurt babies. This is not a false equivalency. You wouldn’t leave a young child alone in a bath tub just as you shouldn’t want random crazies walking around with legally obtained guns. If this is not the time to put aside petty politicking, I don’t know when is. We now regulate the number of calories in a Happy Meal but we don’t regulate machine guns in any viable way? Do more Happy Meals kill people than assault weapons?

Well, as long as we keep telling ourselves that this is not the time for politics, we will never hold our representatives in Congress or the White House accountable for these tragedies. But, this country is literally dying for cogent gun policy. How many more of these nightmares do we have to experience before something (political) is truly done? We kill more people in this country each year via gun than any other “peaceful” nation. Doesn’t it sound like time for politics? I’d say yes.

Be Sociable! Share!
Pinterest


Related Posts


Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Brenda55 19620 pts moderator

It is more that a political issue it is social.

Political solutions will only solve part of the problem.

We must also answer the question: What about our son's?

What is making them kill each other one on one in urban communities and in mass in suburban ones?

Some food for thought.

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/guns-and-the-decline-of-the-young-man/?hp

Statuesque 1749 pts

The current theory is that Adam Lanza murdered his mother with her own weapons, and then used them to murder the children and adults at the school.

 

There is no constitutional gun control law that would have stopped this crime from occurring.  There is likely TECHNOLOGY that could make the unlawful or unauthorized discharge of a gun owner's weapons impossible or less likely.  There are ABSOFRIGGINLUTELY more security measures that could have and should be put in place in schools.  Adam Lanza had no business being at that school.  He should not be able to come in with a pencil and paper, much less several weapons.  We secure airports because crazy people are trying to put bombs on planes and fly them into buildings.  I'm not saying roll out the elementary school version of the TSA (in fact, as a frequent flyer, I just threw up a little bit in my mouth at the mere thought) but I am saying, for God's sake, please let's not use this tragedy as a means to push any particular agenda on guns when it seems no reasonable gun laws would have kept it from happening.

 

Could we refuse to let the mother of a lunatic own guns?  Yes, but how?  We have got to focus on the mental health aspect and containment of dangerously imbalanced people in this situation, because the common denominator here is crazy.  The gun part is certainly relevant, but I for one would not be feeling better if he had blown up the school with legally obtainable bomb components, or if he had entered the school and started a fire.

JennMJack 1180 pts

 Statuesque

 Apparently he shot through the security glass and broke in. The school was already locked and the teachers were in lock down mode. They responded exactly as they should have by protecting as many children as they could. Police authorities say that if they had not responded that way, many more lives would have been lost. They really didn't stand a chance against the arsenal he brought with him. He had over 100 rounds that could peel off as quickly as he could pull the trigger.

 

Here is the thing though, this piece has no agenda but to say why the hell are we not talking about this stuff? This is America's dirty little secret that usually sticks to the hood where the victims are black and Latino. But now, and more increasingly, these issues are arising in quiet little peaceful white neighborhoods. The proverbial cat is out of the bag. We need to have a national campaign against this stuff. Period. We need to reset gun expectations because right now, they are disparate and diffuse.

 

I don't think gun policy is an isolated thing. Why can't gun policy include mental health provisions for all those who live in the home where the guns are stored? Why can't they include mandatory training for all people over 18 who would reside within 20-50 feet  of a storage locker? Why do so many people fail to understand that governing is not the same as legislating? Passing laws is not cogent gun policy. Policy is the comingling of agendas, settings, policies, laws, provisions, and talking points. It is about changing the gun culture not passing laws.

 

We do this with scared straight. We do this for teen drivers. We can't do this for gun owners?

 

The killer shot one 6 year old boy 11 times. He had no chance of surviving. A killer across the world went after small children with a knife. They all survived. I disagree that  "no reasonable gun laws would have kept it from happening."

Statuesque 1749 pts

 JennMJack Reasonable gun policy has to be about securing lethal weapons, utilizing security-focused technology to limit the risk to harm and mitigating the worst behaviors/circumstances that lead to the type of crimes/accidents that are preventable.  It is only ONE of the considerations in overall security though. The best security measures are multilayered and as comprehensive as possible.  No one on any side of this issue can credibly argue that our approach to security in any arena meets these criteria.

 

But there are two dilemmas here that have to be acknowledged as we search for the right ways to maintain our safety in a free society, or the solution will not resolve a thing and there will be more despair and overreaction when the next incomprehensible tragedy occurs.

 

First:  The Pandora's box of lethal technology is open, and it won't be closed with laws, draconian or lax.  The ship has sailed. Elvis has left the building.  There isn't enough money or political will for humanity to begin the international, collective exercise or purging our planet of this lethal technology.  That is a pipe dream in 2012 and it should be off the table as a credible resolution of the dilemma.  Then there is the reality that these weapons are plentiful in THIS country regardless of what a particular legislature has decreed.  If CT banned the ownership of everything from automatic rifles to antique derringers in display cases, he could still have easily obtain illegal handguns, rifles and ammunition.  And that's guns.  A person hell-bent on destruction and dispatching the lives of the innocent has many options, but guns are often readily available illegally and legally.  If we do not resolve the problem of Looney Tunes Lanza getting his hands on lethal weapons, we are nowhere in solving this problem.

 

Second:  The mentality of a abnormal person cannot be controlled with laws.  It remains a mystery to even the most learned and experienced health professionals as to what triggers a person to commit these unspeakably violent and destructive acts. The resolution at this point is a matter of implementing security measures (for the individual, family and society) and utilizing the treatment and containment options that keep these people from being a danger to themselves and others.  People like Adam Lanza kill and hurt people on smaller scales daily, because this country has abdicated its responsibility for dealing with the mentally ill, and allowed for-profit drug companies to peddle their destructive wares to a public that believes these drugs are the answer, but case after case proves they are ineffective if not compounding the problems they are supposed to be solving.  It is this failure that forms the nucleus of the root cause.  We cannot name many law-abiding gun owners who perpetuate these crimes (whether they are 2nd Amendment worshippers or not) and we can't even say that your garden-variety criminal jackass commits them either.  This is a special class of Grade A nutcase that more primitive societies quite frankly just used to kill outright, because they knew that there was something going on inside that person that they could not control 100%and this uncertainty put their societies at risk.  We have learned a lot about mental pathology, but we still have not learned how to reliably predict which mentally ill person will go nuts and kill innocent people, and which can be successfully treated.

 

These two dilemmas are simply not solvable at this time.  The likelihood of lethal weapons being accessed and used by sociopaths/psychopaths can only be mitigated by security measures.  Gun control is unreasonable when it attempts to close Pandora's box.  Crazy control is ineffective when it tries to pretend like we are not always at risk when certain people walk freely among us.

 

So for me, this is about better mental health screening, monitoring, control and support of and for individuals and their families as well as implementing comprehensive/multilayered security measures that can remove the threat in a majority of circumstances.  Security in licensing and usage of lethal weapons, getting illegal weapons off the streets and preserving (not hindering) the ability of people to defend themselves in extraordinary circumstances.  

 

I'm someone who wishes that part of the security plan at the school included armed police officers or even a secured cache of weapons available for trained teachers/administrators to access and use as a back up when the security glass (a joke anyway) is broken.  

Statuesque 1749 pts

 JennMJack "They really didn't stand a chance against the arsenal he brought with him. He had over 100 rounds that could peel off as quickly as he could pull the trigger."

 

100 rounds is not that all that much, and he is one person.  They are lucky that he did not arm himself like the Aurora killer or he could have dispatched half the school before the cops got there.  If the school had been equipped to defend itself against an armed invader (whether by police or other trained adults in the school) it is absolutely likely that someone could have dropped him in the entrance hallway, at the door of a classroom before he entered it, or shortly after.  Even if the outcome was exactly the same, they would have had a fighting chance at survival.  Security glass???? Clearly not if it isn't bullet proof.

 

Those precious children and adults were sitting ducks, and we can't say because it was inconceivable that someone would attack a school.  It has happened in multiple countries.  It even happened to the Amish.  That's akin to letting 9/11 happen over and over and over again because we don't like the idea that some Muslims are terrorists, and we'd rather keep pretending that flying hijacked planes into buildings is a bridge too far for even the most hardened terrorists, and all we need to do is make sure everyone takes off their shoes and have no more than 3.4 ounces of liquids.  Security glass.  SMH......

 

 

JennMJack 1180 pts

 Statuesque

 Here's the thing. You and I agree. You are talking about ifs. And, I am saying we should consider all the ifs. An issue I have with this is that people polarize. One side says, "this is not political or let's pray." And the other side says this is all about mental health, or gun policy, or more guns, or whatever.

 

What I am saying is that there is a level-headed center. All these things are not mutually exclusive. It can be about mental health and gun policy. We can all have ideas and suggestions and ifs. Our ifs may be different but they are still valid ifs. It is when we start to exclude one another that we get no where on this stuff.

 

Politics is not about legislation. It is about people functioning together in society. Like I said, those poor students and teachers didn't stand a chance. And to say that 100 rounds (that he had on his person not including what he had in his car) is not much convolutes the point I was making. In today's state, there are no ifs in action for those types of situations. Because we are polarized, there is no conversation on these issues. This, thereby, exacerbates the impact of the crimes. And, leaves folks like sitting ducks as we stagnate on our responsibility to protect one another.

 

I am simply suggestiing that we have the conversation about guns without denigrating one another and call our representatives in Congress to do the same.

Statuesque 1749 pts

 JennMJack Agreed, though I'd frame the conversation in terms of the actor and the tool and not just the tool. Sadly,  I think we also both know that a sane discussion will not be had about this situation in Congress.

JennMJack 1180 pts

 Statuesque

 I must admit, I am a bit of an idealist when it comes to our government. I am not totally jaded yet and possess a great deal of respect for the more dutiful chamber: the Senate.

 

I'd like to believe that the external pressure put on them due to recent shifts in voting blocs and policy support will force them into action on these less popular issues. Only time will tell though...

Seenyc 786 pts

Guns were/are made to KILL people. This country  is full of dumb down citizens with short attention spans.  Until this country shifts away from the culture of violence, nothing is going to change. This incident will be like the rest, a tragic episode only to be remembered  until something else happens.  We are in a hell of a lot of trouble when people think killing someone or many someones is the way to solve thier problems, or worse, they just don't care.

ironcowboy 324 pts

Jen, you have no understanding of constitutional law, case, law, or even common law… this much is painfully clear… Please stick to politicizing deaths from tornado outbreaks; it pays better in the media.

 

We the people are armed specifically to engage in war and kill politicians, and people who support those politicians who try to take away our freedoms… the whole point of an armed citizenry is to make potential tyrants and dictators (and their public supporters) think really really really hard before they try to seize power!  Anyone who has ever studied history understands that evil men lurk among us, and that the price is freedom is blood… and that history constantly repeats itself!  

 

I feel that perhaps you live in a fantasy world that thinks the price of freedom is the blood shed only by our armed troops, and only on foreign battle fields, and that the enemy is exclusively “without” and not also found “within.” 

 

Yet paradoxically most liberals say that we don’t need small arms because they are not effective at fighting the mighty US military?  Who can stop them with their high-tech firepower and main battle tanks, say the liberals?     Pathetic fools… have they no brains?  Did you notice how the US military was fought to a stop in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan by seemingly disjointed bands of merry Vietminh and Talban insurgents?  Have you no faith in the freedom fighters?  How many times do we have to fight your military to a standstill with mostly small arms and self-determination before you realize that yes, Saigon… I mean,  Washington DC can indeed fall when it is time to cast off the oppressors of the freedom of the people.

JennMJack 1180 pts

 ironcowboy

 So, I choose not to placate your incendiary language which equivocates the point of the post. I will instead focus on reality.

 

Your explanation is that we need our guns to kill politicians? To that, I pose the question, since politicians are supposed to operate under law as are common citizens, how many politicians have been kills in these mass shootings? Not many right?

 

Well then, please explain why this means that we cannot have cogent gun policy and please stick to the topic posed.

 

By the way, this has nothing to do with case law or common law.

SirLoinDeBeef 2526 pts

This will be a cynical post - 30 days! - if the issue is still before the public by the next month, and the proposed legislation makes it to the various Govenors and/or president, well and good - but I fully expect it to receed into the background, to be superseeded by the next few emotional issues (Israel ... Iran ... Sharia Law ... China ... or some celebrity banging some diplomat ...).


A point to make - I live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where one has to jump through numerous hoops just to get a concealed carry permit - signed, sworn documents ... an interview by LEO ... testimony letters by two citizens of the city, who themselves must be investigated ... high fees ... long delays & often decisions from a faceless bureaucracy, saying "No!" without a word of explanation - recent public disclosure of all persons names and locations, who have been declined for a CCW permit.


This, in a city noted for its attitude of being 'corrupt-and-complacent' - how hard is it to legally obtain and carry a weapon:  quite hard - Illegally:  with a few hundred dollars, I or any ofther human can obtain a semi-automatic weapon (hand- or long-gun) of awesome killing capacity,  in public, right on the street (& not in the 'hood') or get several from a 'straw buyer' - as consequence, Philadelphia is awash in handguns, and I am never quite sure that the next guy or woman I pass on the street won't draw and shoot at me, because I bumped them, failed to step away, or even because "he look at me funny" - BAMM!


IF I, personally, wanted to obtain a handgun, I would expect to get at least the same level of competency evaluation as I would to own or drive a car - an examination - a polygraph exam (lie-detector) - eyesight evaluation - a basic mental-evaluation - a backgrond check, including any history of mental problems or PTSD acting-out - training, in classroom and a range - knowledge of basic gun law and consequences of carry and use - mandantory insurance for gun-related injury or death - repeated manantory renewals at frequent intervals (twice yearly) - etc.

I see no reason whatsoever to own, carry or use a semi-automatic military-type weapon, capable of easy conversion to full automatic.

But, as I said above ... 30 days!

JennMJack 1180 pts

 SirLoinDeBeef

 Sir, you are dead on with this post. Not sure what the 30 days means though...

Gun control is not the answer. I have not seen it work here. Please stop comparing Canada and the UK to a country of 300 million with very different ideologies. If gun control worked then we would see less crime in places that had alot of fun control. This is not really a political issue

JennMJack 1180 pts

You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

 

http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard

 

Our gun laws in this country are hardly strict. You haven't seen them "work here" because our laws are lax.You use inductive reasoning but it starts at a basis that is already biased toward lenient gun control. Therefore, simply saying that some areas are stricter and still have violence totally ignores the fact that their version of "stricter" is still pretty loose.

 

And, to say that we can't compare across nations is just as silly as saying that Chicago (a city steeped in historical poverty, corruption, violence, and mafia ties) should be used to provide evidence against the effectiveness of gun laws.

 

This is a major political issue. And, again, my piece is not about gun laws or stricter policies. It is about having a universal policy from the federal government as opposed to the diffuse, disjointed "laws" we have across the nation. This includes more checkpoints to get guns legally as well as other contingencies like required gun training and renewal every few years. Again, a conversation needs to be had. Whatever the outcome may be.

 

I don't understand why we can do all this stuff for drivers, CPAs, folks with diabetes, etc. but we can't do it for folks who own lethal weapons. If you don't understand these points I truly don't know how else to explain it.

BlackWomenDeserveBetter 1852 pts

I'll take a page from Charlton Heston's book "From my cold, dead hands..."But here is a documentary which will give some food for thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pKasF6l3y0

My latest conversation: A CAUTIONARY TALE: We Tend Not To Learn Stuff When It's Easy

Seenyc 786 pts

He's cold and dead. Did someone get the gun from his hands?

JennMJack 1180 pts

 Brenda55 I too agree with this analysis but still maintain that nothing will change until we buck the cultural foundations that support this issue. And, my piece was less of an analysis of the mass shooting and more of a commentary to those who would suggest gun control/public policy is not the answer.

 

I am not focused on this particular issue itself because I really don't think that it helps solve the problem by beating it over whites' heads that this is an "everywhere problem." Simply saying it over and over again won't do anything. Until folks in leadership make that clear on a national stage, it won't change. This is what I mean when I talk about policy changes.

 

We have national endeavors against AIDs, obesity, and other epidemics. Why not gun violence? Well, because, yes, many do not believe this is an "everywhere" problem. It wasn't until the government stepped in on obesity that corporations recognized that as an "everywhere" problem. I am not sure what the gamut of solutions entails. But, I am sure that denial or ignorance don't help. And collusion in said ignorance by the US government is the most dubious aspect of this social travesty.

 

Thanks for the comment:)

DeepWater 2464 pts

I agree, JennJack, completely.

FriendsofJay 1853 pts

Regrettably, the NRA will never relent on this issue.  They donate heavily to political campaigns and will therefore always keep gun control off the agenda unless these tragedies continue unabated and more frequently and there is a public outcry for it.  You would think a deeply disturbed 20 year old who shot twenty little kids in elementary school would cause that outcry.  We'll see.

 

In the meantime, watch this four minutes video of Piers Morgan becoming quite angry in a conversation with three people from the NRA

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/12/15/fireworks_piers_morgan_vs_guests_on_gun_control.html

JennMJack 1180 pts

 FriendsofJay I could not agree with Piers more. This whole issue makes us look like the butt of a really bad joke to the rest of the world. The argument that we need MORE guns is completely asinine. Anyone who chooses to think through this objectively (net of their own political leanings) can see that this is a numbers issue. Guns nearly outnumber human beings in this country. Math alone tells you that a reduction in guns might have a similar impact on the gun shootings...thanks for the post.

FriendsofJay 1853 pts

 JennMJack Getting ready to go out to dinner I had a thought about the Newtown shooter.  If you look at the history of these people going crazy and shooting students and teachers at their schools, the one common thread that touches them all is a feeling of being ostrisized by the rest of their classmates.  Some way must be devised to have students be all-inclusive.   That way there will be no feeling of "being different" and therefore less chance of these incidents happening.  You really can't make people like one another, but you can explain to students that ostracizing someone works psychologically on that person's mind and can create a dangerous situation.  If students know this perhaps their understanding that all people must be included in their group will make for a better and happier school experience.  O.K. I minored in psychology in college and every once in a while it comes through.

Seenyc 786 pts

If  the gunman had done this to people in and around his age, his peers, I could totally agree with your assessment of being ostrisizied. He shot up an elementary school full of 5 to 10 year olds.He didn't go to school with them,  they weren't his peers. Why them? I think there was something more than being ostrisized going on with him considering he killed his mother too.  The shooters at Columbine at VTech and Colorado didn't kill thier parent(s), if I'm recalling correctly.

FriendsofJay 1853 pts

 Seenyc You may be right on that point, but the Lanza kid was something of an oddball and was almost certainly ostracized by many people, young and old.  But on the larger issue I think that if you look at Columbine, the movie theater killings and others, the killer seemed set apart from friends, family and certainly from his age group.  This is the problem in many of these cases.  A person left to his or her own devices creates a world of his own, with his own laws, his own sense of justice-----a world that is singularly his.  He doesn't have the common culture of the world around him.  I think that's when the trouble starts.  We need a common culture and that must be taught in school.  Children invariably want to be like everyone else, but they also have a need to have a scapegoat.   Our society actually encourages bullyism from both boys and girls, and of course they pick on the person who has been set apart from them.  This passes for normal behavior-----but shouldn't.  Europeans take the problem of bullyism seriously.  We Americans do not.   We believe boys picking on boys or girls picking on girls in school is a rite de passage.   I'm not saying that fixing these problems will totally cause tragedies from happening, but its a start.

SirLoinDeBeef 2526 pts

 FriendsofJay  JennMJack I, personally, was ostrisized in middle- & high-school - I wasn't 'in-with-the-IN-crowd' .. I wasn't even 'in-with-the-OUT-crowd - seldom bullied (mostly because I was 6' 8" of shambling, poorly-coordinated, acne-ridden, super-near-sighted kid), but jeered and ofen the butt of jokes that I discovered, days to weeks after ... by school staff as well as peers - sometimes by family (I was 'stupid kid' a lot).

Rather than violence, I read (devoured) Science Fiction & lived an inner, fantasy life a great deal.

I still managed to turn out pretty well.

FriendsofJay 1853 pts

 SirLoinDeBeef  JennMJack Yes, but you didn't have a predisposition toward evil or violence.  The kids who lash out at society don't have an acceptable outlet for their inner turmoil.  You had literature and art.  Its been said that "art is not made by happy people."  Ostracism can create an outlet in art, music, dance, etc.  Mack Sennett said of Charlie Chaplin that, "he lived alone and was purposely a lonely man.  But he wanted to be a bit lonely because he was afraid if he became too happy he'd lose his creative spark."  Of course, its not always that simple.

JennMJack 1180 pts

 FriendsofJay  I agree with you completely especially since technology has made cyber bullying a common thing. It used to be that these kids could escape the bullying by simply going home. Now, it follows them everywhere they go.

 

I think about the college kid whose roommate taped him kissing another boy. He was in the privacy of his own room and his roommate taped him without his permission. The roommate streamed the video live. And later the boy killed himself because of it.

 

This is the kind of culture we promote. There is no solidarity. There is only divisiveness. This, indeed, is the pathological foundation for these types of tragedies.

 
Karla 18241 pts

And, just so we know, this is a human failing and people can use any kind of weapon to do what they want; this happened the same day: http://nyti.ms/T0L4ir

youngteach 237 pts

 Karla

 Yes, but none of those children died because a knife wound is much less lethal than a bullet from an assault rifle.  I'd personally rather get stabbed than swiss-cheese'd.

Karla 18241 pts

 youngteach I'm not trying to excuse any of the violence that occurs anywhere.  It is reprehensible.  And there's no choice about it.  I don't want to get shot, I don't want to get stabbed.  I don't want anyone else to get shot or stabbed.  If you had read the rest of the article, you would have seen that children have died in other knife attacks in China.  The key is that children or adults, anywhere, should not have to endure the horror of this kind of terrorism.  Children, in particular, don't have the wherewithal to know what to do, no matter the weapon.  Weapons used in this manner are bad, period.

youngteach 237 pts

 Karla

 I did read the entire article.  My point is that I'm certain that knife attack-related deaths are less lethal than guns, not that they're somehow better.  I'm agreeing with you, actually and especially with what you just said:

 

"The key is that children or adults, anywhere, should not have to endure the horror of this kind of terrorism.  Children, in particular, don't have the wherewithal to know what to do, no matter the weapon.  Weapons used in this manner are bad, period."

 

I'm a dreamer, not a pragmatist, but the reality is that things will not change.  I'm certain you've heard the adage that the only things that are certain in life are death and taxes.  Unfortunately, we're not talking about taxes here.

iHeartLove 804 pts

We don't need to outlaw guns, but we need to regulate them better. 

 

That is where the divide lies. The NRA and extreme gun enthusiast want as much freedom as possible when it comes to gun ownership and that is not only irresponsible, it is deadly. 

 

It's like all or nothing. This is the same kind of ridiculous polarization with abortion.

 

Can't we be sensible about it?

 

We also need to realize that part of the gun lobby is business related and has nothing to do with earnest Americans who live in the country or on farms or wherever and who use guns as part of their work and daily life/culture. Making guns is a business and there are some who intend to stay profitable.

 

I am not a particular fan of guns. I did not grow up with them. It is not part of my daily life or culture. It is just something I have very little interest in myself, but I respect those who do have guns as part of their culture. I don't want to "take" guns away from people in some reactionary zeal, but something is wrong with the gun violence in our country and if gun owners and enthusiast can't cop to that then they have something deeply wrong with their perception and understanding of reality.

 

Our culture is extremely violent and gun focused. This is just a fact and yet we are shocked by tragedies like this. How many times can we be shocked? Are we really shocked by this? Let's be honest. We aren't shocked because this kind of gun violence is quickly becoming par for the course. Disturbed? Yes... Saddened? Yes... Grief-stricken? Yes... but anyone who has been paying attention to the news in 2012 should not be shocked. This is the culture we've *chosen* and *encouraged.* There now seems to be several of these tragic mass shootings every year.... Just a few days ago someone was executed on the street in Manhattan in broad daylight....

 

Anyway....

 

I think it is a low point when with 27 dead people, 20 of which are children, some people think they can still argue against **any and/or all further** gun regulation and not come off as anything other than a callous, cold-hearted, and disillusioned person who covets unrestricted access to guns over human life. Sorry, this is not the tragedy to use to make your case that "people kill people, not guns." 

 

 

 

cocoababe 1580 pts

 iHeartLove "We don't need to outlaw guns, but we need to regulate them better. "

EXACTLY!

Karla 18241 pts

This was written by the Chief of Police in Brimfield, OH:

 

I have been thinking about kindergarten students all day. Five and six year-old kids…with no cares and with eyes on Santa coming soon. I see kindergarteners every day at our elementary school; you can always spot them, because of their book bags. They are small, innocent and love the world…and they give the BEST high fives, ever. They high five with love and eagerness…unaware of this nasty world we live in and the fact that monsters really do exist, in the form of killers, like the one who showed up at a school in Connecticut today.

 

I have read many of the opinions posted on our page here and want to offer my own. When disasters like this happen, we as a society tend to go way off, one direction or another. Moving to either extreme is not the answer, in my very humble opinion. We should not ban guns. We should not arm teachers.

 

I am a gun enthusiast. I am an NRA member. I am not a right wing extremist. I have been around guns since birth and have always had one in the house. For those who want to make guns illegal, I have a comparison…cocaine and heroin are illegal. Making something illegal just means that those with a moral compass will not possess or use it…criminals still will. I do not know about the rest of you, but when I am backed into a corner, and have to protect my family from harm or death, I do not want to take a baseball bat to a gunfight.

 

On the other hand…my gun enthusiast friends need to simmer a little. The talk of “criminal" or "gun free zones” is also a little dramatic. The world is not collapsing. There are not bands of roving killers who prey on people because they enter s store or buildings where guns are not permitted. Teachers should not be armed in a school. I do not want teachers having the responsibility of being in a shoot/don’t shoot scenario or worrying about proper backdrop. We constantly work those scenarios and they are unnerving at best. Mrs. Crabtree should not have to worry about breaking out her Glock while also trying to give directions to 25 screaming 1st graders. Additionally, a small fraction of the gun people who “talk the talk” about what they would do in a life or death situation would most certainly not “walk the walk”. It’s very easy to say or type “If I was there with my concealed carry, I would have killed him”….it’s not so easy to put that play in motion. Many would shoot themselves in the leg, and then urinate. Again…that’s a fraction of the gun people, so don’t come unglued.

 

So….we had another mass killing at a school. Innocent children….angels…. gone. I have said it for years, to anyone who will listen. It is time to direct tax money to every school in this nation. It is time to make our schools secure. The time for talk is done….it was done YEARS ago. There should be NO one in the building during the school day except for staff, students and police. Dedicate a secure room/vestibule near the entrance for conferences or meetings with parents. Set a perimeter of cameras and locked doors, so these kids can be safe….the teachers can be safe….and the building can function as a school and not a murder scene.

 

Fed and State elected people, nationwide, listen up…..You have taxed us  beyond belief. You have attempted education reform numerous times and failed. You are failing children and teachers in a way now that is reprehensible….and they are dying. Stop lining the pockets of your lobbyists and start securing these schools. If you can fund the study of methane gas released by cattle, you can damn sure make these schools safer. And yes, it is on you. You have taxed at a federal and state level so much; you have caused the locals giant issues with passing ANY taxes. These children leave the safety of home every day….it is our job to return them home, safely. Let’s start making schools a “safe zone”….and not just show up for photo ops when kids die. Lead, or get out of the way. Thoughts and prayers to all involved…..I just cannot grasp your agony……Chief Oliver

R. Kamaria 854 pts

 Karla My thing is, there is no way we are going to get the guns out of the hands of evil, vile people like terrorists, thugs and drug cartels. If RESPONSIBLE citizens are armed and can protect themselves, I don't see what's the problem. You have to complete training to get a CCW. You don't even need one to have a shotgun in your home. I'd much rather be the person with a weapon than not when the bad guys come at me or my family/community. 

Karla 18241 pts

 R. Kamaria And, personally, I feel this too, which is why I made the decision to carry a weapon.

JennMJack 1180 pts

 R. Kamaria  Karla So this piece is not advocating for the banning of guns. I focus mainly on semi-automatics and assault weapons. You believe that private citizens need these too?

Karla 18241 pts

 JennMJack If you read my response below, you will see that I don't advocate assault weapons of any kind.  There's no need for them in an urban, suburban or any other normal, everyday environment and private citizens should not have them.  As for Chief Oliver, I don't know how he feels about assault weapons since he doesn't touch on them but, having worked with law enforcement, they don't want private citizens to have them either.  It just makes their job that much more difficult.

JennMJack 1180 pts

 Karla The response was primarily for R. Kamaria since he didn't mention it in his post.

Karla 18241 pts

 JennMJack Okay.  Just checking...

kiki100 630 pts

 JennMJack  "You believe that private citizens need these too?"

 

YOu may not but some conservatives say they are free to have them if they want.  Just because you show  a link on why more gun control is needed does not mean it will work.  I cannot name one place with alot of gun control laws (including semi automatics) that is correlated with lower crime. This is clear.

JennMJack 1180 pts

 kiki100 So, the problem is that there really are no cases of "strong" gun laws in America. Our laws are universally lax. It works fine internationally though (Scotland/UK are examples). And, folks hate it but Canada has no where near the amount of violence we have and they've had pretty strong policies on gun ownership for decades.

 

I just think that this is about having a conversation. The article is not really about gun laws. It about our lack of ability to discuss guns cogently as a country. There are so many options that we won't even consider because it becomes  a polarized discussion about ideology. That, to me, is the biggest problem here.

Karla 18241 pts

I certainly agree regarding assault weapons.  Who needs that kind of firepower for every day home defense or hunting for goodness' sake?  Afraid that deer is going to get away?  Use an assault weapon that shoots forty rounds a minute. 

 

Now, having said that, I have admitted, on other threads, that I have a handgun and I conceal carry.  I am licensed to do so, have taken numerous classes in gun safety and take my weapon ownership seriously.  Because of this, the entire state of Virginia law enforcement knows I have a handgun and it's my responsibility, if I get pulled over for any reason, to tell them and show them my permit before I show them my drivers' license.  My husband also conceal carries and we have a gun safe for our weapons.  No one coming into our house could ever get to them.  Responsible gun ownership means more than just having a clean record to get past the background check and buying one.  I have one and only one because that's all I need.

 

Not only is it a political issue but it's a private citizen issue as well.  You mentioned that the Columbine shooting and the Newtown shooting were done with weapons obtained from home.  So were the shootings in Germany and Finland.  There has to be some kind of accountability for those parents or people who just leave their weapons out for hunting or sport or just because they're too lazy to properly store them.  My mother, who is a psychiatrist, says that it's difficult for any garden variety person to tell if another person has mental issues unless that person decompensates and, unfortunately, the decompensations in these cases happened at schools.

 

We, as citizens, are soft targets of an insidious form of terrorism and it's closer than we think.  I live in a state where the most horrific mass shooting in US history happened (Virginia Tech).  We also had a major shootout at a police station not 2 miles from my house in which two police offers were fatally gunned down and I live in one of the richest counties in the nation.  in that particular shooting, the man obtained weapons from his mom and dad's house.  The Aurora shooting was at a theater not three miles from where my mother lived, at the time.  I'm pointing this out because, yes, political action must be taken be we, as citizens, have to be responsible for our safety as well.  I'm not talking about a shootout at the OK corral; I'm saying we have to be aware of our surroundings, and some other measures that people aren't going to like in an open society (like having law enforcement on school grounds). 

 

When I was in graduate school the first time, I did my thesis on domestic counterterrorism but did not include mass shootings of this nature because we hadn't gotten to this point.  I also did a paper in relation to my thesis on domestic arms transfers (getting guns on the Black Market).  My professor told me there was no way I could write that paper because the United States categorically denied arms transfers were happening on our soil.  That kind of stuff only happened in Pakistan, Russia or the movies.  I took it on and began my research at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).  They were highly interested in my paper and allowed me carte blanche access to their databases.  You know what I found?  Arms transfers were alive and well and flourishing in this country.  Because of the denial, the US was the easiest country to obtain an illegal firearm.  The ATF had been trying to get the government to listen to them but no joy.  My paper was only supposed to be 20 pages but it turned out to be 40.  My professor asked for a copy because, in his words, I was the only person who had managed to prove that the US was indeed, involved in arms transfers and could no longer deny it.  My point is that it is ridiculously easy to get a weapon, any weapon, here in this country, whether legally or illegally.

 

Sorry for the length but I feel very strongly about this.  I am not a person who can sit around and wait for someone to "take care of things".  Obviously, this is not happening because the killing continues.  Yes, I agree, it is a political issue but it's also a citizen's issue as well.  We need to take positive action to protect ourselves.  No, I don't mean we should go out and get guns.  I mean we need to train ourselves and our children to be aware, to know what to do in the event of a catastrophic emergency, to defend ourselves with strategic, logical thinking and martial arts, to have discipline, to be physically fit, to survive.  It sucks, I know, but we're living in a time where things are changing and, for better or worse, we have to be able to. as Lao Tzu said, "Bend and maintain integrity."  In the meantime, rules for buying a gun need to get a lot more strict, the government needs to crack down on arms transfers in this country and those who own weapons need to be held accountable for how use and store them. I would even go so far as to say that each person who wants to buy/own a gun should have a thorough psychological exam, although, as my mother says, they can fool even the best shrink.

 

The above is my opinion and in no way do I think it's the one and only answer.  I'm sure there are other solutions out there that may be as or more effective than what I've proposed.  But I stand by my reasoning that this is all our responsibility, not just Congress, the Supremes or the Executive branch.  We're the ones who have to live here, in the midst of the mayhem and its aftermath.

Brenda55 19620 pts moderator

 Karla

 

 Excellent post. Co-sign all of it.

 

But.

 

I am a realist. After all the candle lighting, hand ringing, political pandering/ posturing/spinning and memorial services not a damn thing will change and we both know it.

 

People want the guns to protect themselves from those inherently violent others over there. The guys who do this are not a type, they are an outlier, a one or only and after all it cannot happen here. We don't do stuff like that. It is why we moved here after all.

 

I always read with interest the extent that people will contort themselves into believing that they are safe here and that there are no threats to be found with people like us.

 

Must be nice living in a fools paradise. 

Karla

Karla 18241 pts

 Brenda55 They'd better wake up because living in a fool's paradise only gets one killed.  And yes, sigh, I know nothing will be done because I am a realist too.  The things that need to be done take money and no one is willing to budget for protection.  It's better to bury heads in sand, wring hands when it happens, hold hands, cry and sing Kumbaya and then let the next big happening take people's minds away from the tragedy.  That's the way it always works.  I wanted to say that Congress does nothing because this stuff doesn't happen in their little worlds but I can't.  Lest we forget, even they are not immune; witness Gabrielle Giffords.

MixedUpInVegas 1654 pts

 Karla

 Dang, Karla, that was an outstanding post!  I agree with you about our gun policy in this country, but want to draw more attention to the mental illness aspect of this issue.  Like your mother, my husband is a psychiatrist and his position is similar to hers.  I can't help but believe, though, that mental illness is seriously under-treated in this country.  The two constants in these awful stories are guns and mentally ill people.  Dealing with one side of the issue (guns) is not enough; we have to address the mental illness side as well.

JennMJack 1180 pts

 MixedUpInVegas  Karla Brenda55 These are all great points. And, this is the fundamental criticism I am attempting to bring up with the original piece. When are we (the larger American we) going to have a real conversation about this stuff? Yes, guns will always exist. Yes, bad guys can get them. Yes, we can't outlaw them totally. But, here's the issue, is it not just a matter of statistics?

 

Statistically speaking if we reduce the magnitude of the variables in this equation - number of guns on the streets, number of legally obtainable weapons, numbers of guns per household, types of guns available, quantity of rounds allowable in-hand at any given time, well, you get the point - and couple those reductions with real advocacy for communities around gun education and awareness, should we not see improvement?

 

This isn't rocket science. We have Britain, Japan, and Scotland to use as comparative examples where some if not all of these methods were applied. Is this not another epidemic? It is just like AIDs, obesity, and everything else ailing our communities. When are we going to hold our representatives responsible for setting the tone on this issue that has long ailed the black community and is now having devastating affects on the white community as well.

Karla 18241 pts

 MixedUpInVegas I just had this convo with my mother and she says that most people in this country pretend that mental illness doesn't exist and are, therefore, unequipped to deal with it.  Never was this made more clear to me than when I was in the Navy.  My first commanding officer told me he didn't believe in mental illness, that people used it as a crutch; all the while, we had two petty officers who had some major emotional problems (one in which I had to talk down off a ledge when he threatened suicide).  It has always been the elephant in the room and my mother said the reason she finally had to let it go was because it was an uphill battle between lack of funds and other means of support.  People don't believe what they can't see but isn't it convenient when a situation of the Newtown magnitude or Virginia Tech explodes all over the American psyche.  "Oh, he was mentally unbalanced.  Moving on..."  Mental illness definitely needs to be on the table.

MixedUpInVegas 1654 pts

 Karla

 Karla, your mother is right.  My own mother says she doesn't believe in mental illness, even though her son-in-law is treating it in his practice.  Many people want to believe that the mentally ill are simply "weak" and need to "snap out of it."  The worst part is the people who are the most crazy are the ones with the least support for treatment.  There's no question that mental health gets short shrift even among the insured population; many seriously ill people have no coverage or only minimal coverage (like Medicaid) that doesn't address the depth of their illness or it's ongoing nature.  If they aren't shooting up innocent people, they push them off subway platforms and assault them in parking lots.

 

Maybe what is needed is to make this horrifying incident the catalyst for change in both gun laws and the treatment of mental illness.  Speaking as someone who owns and shoots guns and works in behavioral health, I can see room for improvement in both areas.

 

I cannot see how doing nothing will make an increasingly worsening situation better.  While I don't have all the answers, I'd like to pose some questions for the consideration of my fellow citizens.  What are we going to do about this and how are we going to get our representatives to man up and serve the best interests of their constituents?  And . . . isn't now a good time to do something?

Trackbacks

  1. [...] became the commonplace dialogue on gun control in America. One might remember a very emotional President Obama calling for his allies and others in Congress to step up and pass real lasting legislation to [...]

  2. [...] before audiences of white families impacted by more “media friendly” gun massacres like Newtown. They sometimes question whether or not the President truly stands with all of his constituents as [...]