Should US have gun control?

[dorispulaski]

There were questions about his mental status though, which might have been caught in a background check...or not.

His mother apparently told another teacher that she was worried about her son before this happened. If someone has guns in the house, and has this kind of worry, I hope they take the guns somewhere else and lock them up-a locker, a storage unit, a friends house.

Unfortunately, this is not the sort of thing you can enforce with laws.

 

[Olympia]

No, it's not, and I agree that you can't necessarily make a law for everything.

It's hard when you bring in the issue of mental illness, because you get into the issue of diminished responsibility. But at first glance, the kind of personality decomposition, if you will, that was clearly suffered by Holmes or Lochner doesn't seem to be present here with Lanza. He made certain choices. There's a point in Milton's Paradise Lost where Lucifer decides that he will follow a different path, and he says, "Evil, be thou my good." While a lot of bad events in the world result from cross purposes or thoughtlessness, some do seem to result from what I can only see as malice--an enjoyment of the suffering of others, a hunger for the rush that comes from causing the agony of others. Some commentators say that Lanza might have had an uncontrollable rage; well, it wasn't always uncontrollable. By the end point, it possessed him, but he didn't start out in its grip. He called it up in himself; he nursed it; he cherished it.

So the question I ask of us is, do we as a society somehow provide the kindling for such people and their actions? We do indeed glorify violence--not all of us to the same degree, of course, but look what sells commercially in the so-called entertainment industry. We also glorify self-gratification and excess. What can we do to change things? Is it out of our hands and in the hands of these lovers of violence? Must we live in an armed camp to protect ourselves because we are afraid of our own sons? As BC says, are guns our form of population control? Are they how we cull our herds? I like to hope we have more power than that over our lives.

 

[skatinginbc]

I guess some of you have heard the story about a crazy person beheading a neighboring passenger on a greyhound bus with a knife in Canada. Had guns been widely accessible in Canada, I'm afraid it would have been a massacre of all passengers, not just one single passenger. There is an old Chinese saying: "Even thieves have codes of behavior." 盜亦有道. In other words, the collateral damage from criminal activity is usually limited and predictable. Those that randomly kill a great number of innocent strangers in a rampage are usually not criminals. They are simply crazy.

A large part of the arguments for guns concerns protecting oneself from the criminals. Sounds good. But is the crime rate actually lower in the US compared to that in countries that do not allow guns? Is the percentage of casualty resulted from crime lower in the US compared to that in countries that do not allow guns? My impression is actually the opposite.

It is kind of ironic that Lanza's mother, allegedly an avid gun enthusiast, was killed by her own gun, one of her collection. "If even one person in that school had been carrying a gun, this shooter would have been stopped." Agreed. I think everyone should be allowed to carry guns to everywhere they like, and wear bullet-proof vests, and, after that, carry chemical weapons for protection. US citizens should be allowed to carry whatever weapons the government has to counter-balance the power of the government, including weapons of mass destruction. Sounds good? It is so much in harmony with the spirit of the US constitutions.

Weapons of mass destruction is a relative term. To me, 20 babies constitutes a "mass".

Hunting as a sport sounds so barbaric. Having raised my intelligent, loving cat, I have a hard time to distinguish the difference between hunting mammals from hunting human as a sport. Even primitive peoples say thanks and pray for the animals they hunted. They hunt for food, not as a sport. To me, those that hunt a deer for fun and then discard its body on roadside are barbaric criminals. Killing for fun is one of the most disgusting things that the US citizens widely treasure.

 

[Olympia]

I agree that things escalate when people think they need to have protection--first it's a gun, then a stronger gun, then it's two guns, to one-up the possible bad guys. In any case, being armed doesn't necessarily guarantee protection. For one thing, notice that most of these guys who stage commando killings like this make sure to show up in body armor as well as with an overkill supply of weapons. If someone even had had a howitzer, he or she probably couldn't have stopped this monster. So should kids wear armor to school? What does that say about our society if it comes to this?

I think the statistics about killings in other countries will probably bear out your supposition that death rates from violence are lower per capita than in non-gun countries. While there is the occasional mass killing in a place like Norway or Japan, it's not nearly as common as here.

One difference with a gun is that you don't have to stand right in front of someone and put yourself in that person's range. You can inflict death from a safe and uninvolved distance.

I had to laugh (not in a delighted way, mind you) when I read the comment by some self-righteous gun owner. He said that in his house, all his guns were kept in a safe that only he and his wife could open by fingerprint recognition, so the kids or intruders couldn't get at him. Did he not notice his illogical statement? If they were that hard to get to, how could they be available for his protection in the case of a home invasion? Does he think that home invaders phone ahead to let you know they're on their way?

I reiterate my point: if you are really carrying a gun for your protection, you must have it with you at all times. You must sleep with it. And if someone wakes you and takes it before you are fully conscious, you can get it buried with you in your coffin.

Interestingly, the most law-and-order people around, the cops, are for gun control. Guess why. Who wants to be wearing nothing but a twill shirt and a pistol and be faced with a semi-automatic rifle?

 

[ForeverFish]

A bit eerie that the Newtown shooting happened on the same day as the stabbing of 20+ people in China (all of whom are thankfully alive as of the writing of this post). It goes to show, IMO, that in a country where firearms like semiautomatic rifles can be legally purchased from your local sporting goods store, the propensity for irreversible tragedies increases exponentially. Like one news network said, it's difficult to cause mass destruction with a knife.

My heart breaks for the families of the children and the adults killed. What really got me in tears was

1. Hearing first-grade teacher Kaitlin Roig's account of how, while she and her students were barricaded inside of a bathroom, all they could say was "I just want Christmas. I want my mom."
2. The official release of the victims' names and photos. For me, it exacerbated the reality of the incident, if that makes sense.

Unfortunately, however, I'll never understand why Nancy Lanza kept a gun collection, even locked and hidden, in a house where a clearly disturbed individual was also residing--especially after she expressed worries about his mental state of being. It could be argued that in young males (ages 10-25), a fascination with guns and other weapons is expected--healthy, even, because it demonstrates a testosterone level in correlation with pre- and post-puberty. It wasn't so long ago that my own companions of the XY-chromosomal persuasion were enthusing about upcoming hunting trips and going weapon-shopping with their fathers. But Mrs. Lanza may have unknowingly contributed to her son's actions by keeping high-power firearms on hand and teaching her children how to shoot (it's my understanding that, in Connecticut, Adam was not yet of the legal age to purchase a gun), and for that, her name will tragically be associated with this carnage forever.

That being said, convincing gun-owning Americans to toss their weapons into a bin marked "Constitutional Change" is an impossible task, IMO. Two hundred and fifty years of legal ownership (find me a majority of citizens willing to alter the Bill of Rights and I'll find you more who oppose it to their last breath) has left us too paranoid and mistrustful of others who may be prone to violence, and instinct calls for self-preservation by whatever means possible. It reminds me of a rule we bemoaned in grade school--"One person ruins it for everyone." What a nasty reminder, not only after Friday but throughout this year, that that will never be true. And we know that in the wake of this horror, some deranged person with access to a gun will think, "Well, I can beat that."

I do believe that the appropriate way to honor those slain is to remember their names and accomplishments, not those of the shooter. I read a great quote attributed to Morgan Freeman in response to the tragedy, drawing back to the Columbine shooting--Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are household names, but how many of the victims do we remember? Freeman said, and I second, that the only way to reduce the likelihood of sick fame-seekers is to deny them the swarm of media attention bent on satisfying public demand for morbidity.

Like those before me, then, I leave you with several questions to consider: In the case that gun control laws are passed, do you think that enforcement would prove effective, or are people determined to latch onto their familiar notions of protection? Could a gun on one of the adults at Sandy Hook realistically have stopped the shooter from taking so many innocent lives? And do you think that, following the vilification of Nancy Lanza by the media, parents will cease to provide weapons training for their children?

 

[Buttercup]

The official release of the victims' names and photos. For me, it exacerbated the reality of the incident, if that makes sense.

Of course it does that. 20 children is a number - a shocking and appalling one, of course, as is the total number of those murdered. But faces, names, stories, they all make the victims seem much closer, like people you know or might have liked had you met them. It's only human to react this way.

Regarding gun control, I have no idea what the US should do. The attachment to the 2nd amendment and the way some people interpret it is not something that I, as a non-American, can truly understand or really relate to. In response to what Olympia wrote, I don't think it far-fetched to have armed security at the entrance to every school (not in your face, SWAT-like forces; just trained guards). There are places where this is just what you see in schools, including in places not as well-off as most US communities. If it's a matter of allocating funds, that's really just a question of priorities.

As others have noted, a lot can also be done to help people with mental health issues, which might help prevent some of these horrific shootings. I highly recommend reading "I am Adam Lanza's Mother", for anyone who hasn't yet.

 

[Olympia]

As someone once said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Could it be possible to limit ownership of, say, Uzis without violating the spirit or the letter of the Second Amendment?

As for whether one of the adults at Sandy Hook could have changed the outcome with a gun, that person would have had to be able to shoot a moving target in the head before getting taken out first. The guy seems to have had body armor on, as did the guy in the Colorado theater. Then, suppose the shooter were in front of a classroom of kids.

Where would someone aim to hit just the shooter?

Then, suppose the one person with the gun had been taken out by the shooter, who had the element of surprise on his side. Should there have been two people with guns? Five people? Who would those people have been? School budgets are tight. Five security guards, five salaries. So maybe the teachers should have had the guns. Loaded and ready? Would they have been wearing the guns during class? With the six-year-olds?

I don't mean to be difficult, but I really need to know. I work in educational publishing. If I decide to go into teaching, how adept do I need to be with a firearm in order to do a good job in the classroom. If I'm not good at eye-hand coordination, should I not consider teaching children?

 

[ForeverFish]

As for whether one of the adults at Sandy Hook could have changed the outcome with a gun, that person would have had to be able to shoot a moving target in the head before getting taken out first. The guy seems to have had body armor on, as did the guy in the Colorado theater. Then, suppose the shooter were in front of a classroom of kids.

Where would someone aim to hit just the shooter?

Then, suppose the one person with the gun had been taken out by the shooter, who had the element of surprise on his side. Should there have been two people with guns? Five people? Who would those people have been? School budgets are tight. Five security guards, five salaries. So maybe the teachers should have had the guns. Loaded and ready? Would they have been wearing the guns during class? With the six-year-olds?

I don't mean to be difficult, but I really need to know. I work in educational publishing. If I decide to go into teaching, how adept do I need to be with a firearm in order to do a good job in the classroom. If I'm not good at eye-hand coordination, should I not consider teaching children?

The detail about the body armor in this case, as in the Colorado theater shooting, really does raise questions about how disturbed these individuals really were. Clearly no one in a sound state of mind would wake up one morning and decide to attack a group of defenseless children--the mental decay and planning for this crime must've reached back months or even years--but taking the precaution of a bulletproof vest implies lucidity at the time.

Certainly, with the torso protected, the most logical place to aim an incapacitating shot would be the head. I've been to a shooting range exactly once in my life, and let me tell you that it was a significant accomplishment to even hit the outer ring of the target.

All this talk about teachers or administrators carrying guns is well-founded but unfeasible, IMO. I would no more have a firearm in the proximity of a five-year-old than I would personally present one, fully loaded, to a five-year-old. Such legislation would inevitably change the very environment of public schools, which is to provide safe and free education for children--add guns, even solely for self-defense, to the equation and it creates an atmosphere of fear and danger by virtue of their only function, which is to kill. All it would take is for one careless adult to leave a gun unattended on a desk or in a halfway-opened drawer.

I can sense the argument coming that this leaves our schools vulnerable to attack, which is why I do advocate the posting of guards or police officers at schools. I know that, where I live, the schools all have campus police whose main job is to keep the students safe (usually from themselves). However, in the event that an outside threat appears, having people who are trained to use these weapons puts a sense of security and reassurance into the minds of parents and teachers alike.

 

[Olympia]

You've made many of my points for me. It's not just impractical but dangerous to expect teachers to be the defenders bearing arms. You can't keep a loaded gun around kids. As Daniel Moynihan once said, "I'd rather keep a live rattlesnake around." This is why I keep bringing up the practicalities of the suggestion that "if just one person in the school/theater/mall had had a gun, the shooter would have been stopped." Maybe not.

I don't know whether every school has an armed security guard already, or whether these guards are more than nominally trained to deal with an armored invader with multiple weapons. Also, is one guard enough to patrol a school the size of the Newtown school? The aerial view showed a pretty large complex of buildings. The elementary school was only a small part of it.

I have thought a great deal about the issue of sanity. Some people are clearly not sane, for example the Aurora shooter, Holmes. But I don't think that every teenaged boy or young man with a gun and rage is nuts in either the legal or medical sense. (Legal insanity is a more stringent definition than medical insanity.) Thinking that everyone who mows people down with a gun is insane implies that we are slaves to all our impulses, and that I cannot believe. That being said, I wonder whether there is some way to prevent people from giving in to such impulses. Maybe by the time Lanza reached the school, he had a diminished ability to make such a choice, but surely he had choice earlier. In fact, maybe he still had decision-making capabilities. Apparently he had much more ammunition, but he decided to end his life when law enforcement personnel entered the building. There's a quote in C.S. Lewis's book That Hideous Strength that comes to mind: "If you call the devil, he will come." If you embrace this path, you will go down it, and it will pull you further and further in.

 

[heyang]

IMHO, an armed guard would not have made a difference in Newton. Lanza shot a spray of bullets to gain entry to the school - the guard would likely be another casualty.

I still do not understand why some people think that one person trying to aim a handgun at a moving person with an semi-automatic or automatic weapon would have a chance. The only possibility of that is if the handgun person was able to approach the assailant from behind. As mentioned, one of my co-workers claims he would shot the Aurora shotoer in the dark with a roomful of people running away from the shooter, which would be likely between himself and the shooter. That's how thoughtless IMHO this opinion is that anyone who might have a handgun might be able to take out someone with weapons of mass destruction without killing others and without putting themselves in the line of fire.

Personally, I feel that the general public does not need to own semi-automatic nor automatic weapons. IMHO, your 2nd amendment rights means that you have the right to the same weapons that existed at the time that the Constitution was written, which should be enough for basic hunting and basic defense of your home.

 

[Vash01]

Unfortunately, however, I'll never understand why Nancy Lanza kept a gun collection, even locked and hidden, in a house where a clearly disturbed individual was also residing--especially after she expressed worries about his mental state of being. It could be argued that in young males (ages 10-25), a fascination with guns and other weapons is expected--healthy, even, because it demonstrates a testosterone level in correlation with pre- and post-puberty. It wasn't so long ago that my own companions of the XY-chromosomal persuasion were enthusing about upcoming hunting trips and going weapon-shopping with their fathers. But Mrs. Lanza may have unknowingly contributed to her son's actions by keeping high-power firearms on hand and teaching her children how to shoot (it's my understanding that, in Connecticut, Adam was not yet of the legal age to purchase a gun), and for that, her name will tragically be associated with this carnage forever.

Like those before me, then, I leave you with several questions to consider: In the case that gun control laws are passed, do you think that enforcement would prove effective, or are people determined to latch onto their familiar notions of protection? Could a gun on one of the adults at Sandy Hook realistically have stopped the shooter from taking so many innocent lives? And do you think that, following the vilification of Nancy Lanza by the media, parents will cease to provide weapons training for their children?

From what I read Nancy Lanza was an avid gun collector, and she was concerned about her son's mental health. He had a form of autism. So far we have not heard whether her worries included her son wanting to kill others. Mental illness covers a very wide range. I feel fairly certain that many gun owners feel it is safe for them to store guns at home, that nothing can go wrong (until it does- an accident or a theft of the weapon by the wrong person, like in this case). She did contribute to the tragedy, including her own death, but it is quite possible that she did not see her son as a potential killer. I am giving her the benefit of doubt until further details emerge.

About enforcing the gun control laws (if they get passed)- nobody said it would be easy. Enforcement is rarely 100% but it is still better than 0% enforcement (meaning no gun control laws). It will take time, training and efforts to implement it, and even a small success is progress when you compare it with what's going on right now. It is hard to predict whether an adult carrying a gun at Sandy Hook could have prevented the loss of so many lives. We are talking of possibly a single shot gun vs an assault rifle that was military grade. I don't think that would work. IMO the more important thing is to not encourage people to buy even more guns because of gun violence. The real need is to get away from violence, and not let it increase exponentially (IMHO it already has).

 

[Olympia]

Another factor of the argument is being discussed today, and that's mental illness. Some very good points are being made that we need to pay attention to. For example, a lot of mental health care isn't covered by insurance. This is pretty silly, because something like cancer isn't "catching," but a mental illness can have a dreadful effect on the surrounding population, as we've seen.

Like gun control, this is not an easy problem, either, but it must be confronted. Because of the early awful history of the mentally ill being warehoused in asylums, the law now makes it very difficult for a mentally ill person to be confined against his or her will. Many family members live in fear of what could happen next but can't do anything about it. Yet an expert on TV this morning said that many mental health issues can be dealt with effectively with early intervention. (Obviously I'm not talking about full-blown schizophrenia, which Holmes, the Aurora theater killer, clearly has, but there are other disorders that lessen people's impulse control, and those show up earlier and can benefit from both pharmaceutical and behavioral intervention.) Years ago I read that there would never be a poster child for schizophrenia, meaning that a cute picture wouldn't ever be used to raise money for mental illness research the way Marlo Thomas can use the brave and lovely children who help motivate us to donate funds to St. Jude's Hospital. (And it's paid off; St. Jude's has developed many new treatments for pediatric illnesses, and it treats children who couldn't afford such help.)

 

[Olympia]

People are doing more than arguing. There's a lot of movement right now. The time may be ripe for hard work and improvement. Additionally, there was a news story about a man who threatened his wife's school, and she reported him to the authorities. They took him in. People are starting to take their fate into their own hands. Also, public figures such as Joe Scarborough are beginning to rethink their stance on all guns, all the time. His opinion piece on his morning show was astonishing in its eloquence.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/17/scar...rieve-and-today-as-a-people-we-feel-helpless/

 

[heyang]

I couldn't believe it when I read a recap of the NRA's press conference. Last week, they seemed like they might at least try to have a real conversation. The press conference was totally resistant to the concept that not everyone should be able to obtain guns.

I know guns by themselves aren't evil....however, that doesn't mean it should be easy for anyone to get a gun - especially one that can kill so rapidly.

Sure - put an armed guard at the door or inside the school. The gunman will know to look for the guard and get rid of him/her 1st. The gunman will have the element of surprise. Will the armed guard have an automatic weapon, as well? What happens if there are kids between the gunman and the guard??????

Bullet proof glass? I can see that as something that should be done. However, it won't protect the kids when they are outside for gym or recess. Do you put up walls around the schools then?

Then you have 'inside jobs'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster Who's going to be monitoring the guards to make sure that they are mentally competent?

 

[Olympia]

I was pretty astounded by the NRA guy's approach as well. An armed guard in every school, really? And these are the folks who believe that the government spends too much money as it is. Maybe they can close school lunchrooms and fire the kitchen staff to make up the costs.

More significant is your point about the element of surprise. The shooter, after all, came into that school ready to kill. If the principal (may she rest in peace) had been carrying a gun as she rushed out of her office to confront the guy, what would she have done in that split second? Would she really, truly have plugged him between the eyes without a second thought? What if he turned out not to be a shooter but just the janitor? Or, as you say, what if a child was between him and her? If she had hesitated for even an instant, she would have died with her gun in her hand.

Or maybe the point of the armed guard is that a shooter won't go somewhere that has an armed guard. Well, gee, I guess that means no one ever shoots at a cop....

By the way, Mr. NRA, police don't really like the idea of automatic weapons in the hands of civilians either. Guess why.

 

[dorispulaski]

The shooter was wearing body armor and packing a 30 bullet magazine semiautomatic weapon. Chances are the guard or teacher would have shot for the body, and the guy would have mowed them down in short order.

A guy supporting the NRA position was on, and clarified it to say that all schoolteachers should be required to be armed, and be trained to kill, and be ready to shoot at all times. If a teacher objected to being trained and ready to kill at all times, they should be fired.

At least he resisted the suggestion that students should have guns, however, he then opined that all college students should be armed.

How else, he said, can they protect themselves?

I'm ill. Do these people even listen to how crazy they sound?

 

[Olympia]

I share your nausea, Doris. And the sad thing is, they're not protecting themselves from drug lords or terrorists. They are protecting themselves mostly from young white men from good families. Because they can't defang the threat of young white men from good families any other way except by arming us all to the teeth? It can't be figured out when they're eight or twelve or fourteen that they need help, so they have to kill them when they're nineteen or twenty?

This is the first I've heard that they actually have come out and said that they want to make the ability to shoot to kill a requirement to teach. Instead of being good at math and reading, I suppose. The thing is, school shootings are relatively rare. How will these trained killers keep in shape in between attacks, I wonder?

Now, here's another wrinkle. Yesterday a crazy man with a gun killed several people in Pennsylvania. One was apparently putting up Christmas decorations when shot. If this person had been carrying a gun, how would that have protected him/her from being shot from some distance away? Is the mere possession of a gun a shield?

 

[Tonichelle]

It's about deterring people - they're less likely to go into a well protected area. Will it work 100% of the time - probably not - but it won't make it more dangerous either.

 

[Olympia]

Toni, if I thought you were right, I'd be warmer to the idea. But it will make things more dangerous. You're assuming that everyone who has a "deterrent" gun will be sane.

Also, what is a well-protected area? A person with one gun? A teacher in every classroom with a gun? If that is so, how does the teacher keep the gun safe all day, every day? Can't put the gun down, certainly; too risky. So: wearing the gun when standing close to five-year-old children with grabby hands? Wearing the gun when changing the diapers of toddlers in preschool? Wearing the gun when helping kids in the bathroom? Wearing the gun when tying kids' shoes? Wearing the gun when doing circle dances with the kids? Wearing the gun when dealing with a kid having a tantrum? Possibly an autistic kid having a meltdown?

 

[Tonichelle]

I'm not a fan of the idea of teachers having to deal with it as much as an "armed guard". It'd be no different than the air marshalls on the planes.

And just the idea of every school being protected will deter folks who want to cause damage. More so than a TSA type system where they wand kids and adults alike to let them in the building. I don't feel any safer getting felt up, especially since people do go in.

I think fear of guns and knee jerk reaction is where we are now in teh discussion. The way the experts talk it's amazing I'm alive at nearly 28 because I grew up in a house with guns - yes some with magazines and "semi-automatic". It's also amazing - apparently - that I am not a mass murderer because I was taught how to use a gun as a child. I almost want to make a tshirt so I can be that "one out of all" who "broke the mold". When really most gun owners are more like me than they are the madmen that shoot up the schools, malls, etc.

I do think there needs to be reform, but taking guns away is not the answer.