As the small town of Newtown, Connecticut and the nation at large still mourn the deaths of the innocent in the second worst school shooting in American history, our thoughts and feelings are already being shaped into arguments about gun control and mental healthcare in this country.
We have heard repeatedly about the complexities of both issues as it pertains to affecting real change in our society — whether we are evaluating how to reduce the carnage that is wrought by gun violence and still maintain the rights provided under the Constitution, or how to perhaps change the apathy and ambivalence that exists in a society that embraces a gun culture, and lastly how to focus and assist those people who are so mentally ill that they truly are a danger to society. None of them are easy to parse, but the pervasive feeling after hearing of the slaughter of twenty children is that something must be done. That enough is enough. But how do you get to the root of the problem? Is it simply about banning assault weapons? Could we say absolutely that this would be enough to staunch the kind of violence we saw on Friday, or would those set about destruction just find a new and different means of playing out their “last scene?”
Sure, attempting to get assault weapons out of the hands of those who are apt to use them as an easy method to execute the most damage, is probably a good step toward cracking down, but as we saw with the Columbine massacre wherein assault weapons were used even during their banning from 1994-2004, there are ways for those hell-bent on violence to get what they need. So banning the weapons cannot and should not be the only way we address the problem.
Even if we say that as Americans we are enthralled with guns and proliferating the use of more and more of them from anything from hunting, to a practiced hobby, to simulating shooting at a television screen while a video game plays — all of the above comes part and parcel of the challenges we face when we add to the equation someone who has the markers to be a mass murderer. Weapons that can shoot round after round of ammunition have no place in civilized society — that’s a given. But more importantly what are family members and friends to do when they notice that a loved one is spiraling dangerously into the sort of mania that could effectively cause them to mass murder? How do we even begin to profile and prevent such a thing from happening without infringing on that person’s basic human rights — and to do so without stigmatizing the entire community of those who suffer from a mental illness and are receiving treatment, or others who could fit a profile possibly erroneously as we’ve seen in the coming days as it pertains to autism and those on the spectrum?
Sadly, from what it looks like, as we’ve learned from the profiling of serial killers, even if you identify the markers at a relatively young age (bedwetting, fire setting, and animal torture), there is little that can be done until that person acts. The same goes for mass murderers. Does it make sense to create treatment centers almost like rehabs that can take in these individuals to work with them through their murderous impulses with continued services for however long they need them? Perhaps. Can we also make it part of our healthcare mandates that insurance covers? Well, why not? If you can receive specialized treatment for drug addiction or an eating disorder, why can’t one be diagnosed and potentially treated pre-emptively for an explosive rage disorder or however the DSM would define the tendency to cause mass harm after looking at history, pathology, and possible intent, especially since jails and hospitals do not have the resources to give the kind of care required? Somehow though, there has to be some thought given to how we move past the shame, silence, and helplessness that is now associated with having a troubled child, to making it imperative that these people receive some sort of intervening services before the impulse to murder overwhelms them.
And lastly with regard to our fascination with gun violence which seems to be the hardest obstacle to tackle — how do we begin to change a way of thinking that has been ingratiated into our society for generations — one that for many is a sense of Americanism in itself that is touted in conjunction with the words “freedom” and “my right?” How do you reduce these sentiments when they’ve gone so far as to give rise to the notion that everyone should have a gun just in case they are ever faced with a gun-toting assailant so that whether trained and experienced or not, in theory a potential victim will be able to protect him or herself with counter-violence. Where does any of that stop — with teachers attempting to stop an armed killer amongst a school full of elementary school children? State Representative, Dennis Richardson seems to think so. Yet, we’ll note that the biggest proponents of this type of thinking, the National Rifle Association, has remained positively mum on the latest mass shooting in Newton, CT. They have not tweeted since early Friday, and they have effectively deactivated their Facebook page. And for their part, when asked, many NRA members of Congress refused to participate in a conversation about gun control this weekend during the Sunday morning political panel talk shows — but at least one, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), said that he was open to “to sit down and have a “sensible, reasonable” debate about gun control.”
The reasoned approach is one that many like Gary Hart posits in his writings, “Real Minutemen, Rise Up!” He observes that The NRA rules with a hand wielding paranoia. One that feeds on the notion of “militia” and the rejection of taking away the ability to obtain assault weapons because then the government will come for all weapons especially the “sporting guns” so citizens should be afraid, very, very afraid of any sensible legislation that would reduce the ability to obtain guns of any type even those that ask for the state licensing of weapons, checks for criminal and mental backgrounds, and elimination of unregulated gun shows.
It would be interesting if in the wake of this latest tragedy which has many changing their minds about where the country is headed when the most vulnerable among us are at risk, if this will be the catalyst for real change that involves the cooperation of the NRA which for many is now seen as any other villainous organization that could be a real threat to our homeland security. We’ll see if the NRA can finally be on the right side of advocating for the true safety of American citizens or if it will be more of the same.
Above all else, we can only hope that this notion of “Gun Control” comes with a three-pronged approach that not only focuses on combat-style weapons, but also includes new ideas on serving the mentally ill community, and working to reduce our longstanding love affair with guns wherein just beneath lurks the paranoid fear of the government taking away our freedoms through restricting the access to and proliferation of being able to point and shoot anything living — including children.
Image: Source
