First and foremost, my deepest condolences to the families that lost loved ones in today’s tragedies. To put it succinctly,
- #insert shock horror and emotional statements of distress and expressions of condolences.
- Every parent is going to hug their child a little tighter tonight, and be grateful they arrived home from school safely.
In response to today’s events, the media-sphere and the Internet-sphere has been flooded with calls for gun control. Now I’m not a gun advocate. I do, however, believe that most gun restrictions don’t appear to stop violence — they are like antivirus mechanisms stopping the low hanging fruitcases. Yes, we need sensible gun restrictions — no one needs an Uzi or automatic weapons. But these restrictions aren’t the ultimate answer. We need to treat the ultimate cause of the problem, not the symptoms.
Basically, by the time one of these crazies goes out to get the gun, it is too late. We have seen that no matter what the controls in place, those determined to do something will find a way around the problem. Perhaps if we control anything, we might control ammunition, but even that is problematic. Ammunition is not required; there was violence at a school in China using knives. What is the answer?
First, we need violence control. Bluntly, our society has become desensitized to violence through violent videogames, movies, and TV. Today’s young adults grew up believing that you can kill something and they aren’t really dead. I’m not talking about cartoons — we know cartoons aren’t real. I’m talking about the excessively violent and bloody TV shows (look at the violence in any episode of NCIS as an example), the movies, and the shoot-em-up videogames. Even war violence is often at a distance. We’ve desensitized people to the horror, and this lowers the mental roadblock to such horrible actions. (I could quote George Carlin about replacing “kill” with “fuck”, but then I realized that an equal depiction of sex would likely desensitize people to sexual violence. Showing sex as part of a loving situation is one thing; showing nudity and casual sex between consenting adults is also fine… however, given our society, that would rapidly degenerate).
Second, we need to restore the mental safety net. People doing crimes like this are mentally ill (by definition, this is not a sane act). We have so decimated our proactive mental health systems that might detect and prevent this due to budget cutting and greater concern for acquiring wealth than taking care of people as to make these actions inevitable. We must start regular screening for mental health problems at low or no cost, provide mental health coverage as part of medical plans. We must also educate people on the warning signs that these deranged individuals exhibit, so we can get them in treatment before they do anything.
Lastly, we must control the media. As part of this, we need to recognize the amplifying effect of the Internet, which takes any kooky possibility and magnifies the voices, making things acceptable. It also makes weapons and techniques easily available. The Internet can be used for good, but that doesn’t mean it always is or that it has only had positive benefits. We must also recognize that the publicity and attention may be one of the goals of the crazy. I think about the Stephen Sondheim musical “Assassins“, which makes the point that deranged individual often do crazy things to make their mark on history. Did we need the level of coverage we had today?
Perhaps instead of taking things away and adding restrictions in response to a tragedy like this, we think more about how our society is indicating what is socially acceptable. We continually emphasize violence against others as being positive and entertaining solutions to problems, and rejecting any opportunity to love and care about others. Perhaps positive actions — deemphasizing violence and identifying and treating those with mental health problems early — could be much more beneficial to society as a whole.
Actually, if I’m not mistaken, they’ve proven that violent media isn’t to blame for any of this. Also, as a society, America needs to get up off its collective ass and accept that mental illness is real, that it exists, and that it affects many, many people in many different ways. Then, it needs to do something about the state of mental health care.
They have equally “proven” that HFCS is the same as real sugar. Sometimes the studies are suspect. I still believe that society would be better if we had less glorification and less graphic violence.
We have seen that no matter what the controls in place, those determined to do something will find a way around the problem.
Mother Jones has been studying mass shootings over the past 30 years, defined by them as four or more people (not including the gunman) killed in a public place such as a mall, restaurant, school, etc.
In the vast majority of these cases, what they have found is that the shooters acquired the guns legally.
James Holmes bought thousands of rounds of ammunition on the Internet.
Aside from that, although I haven’t looked at the exact numbers, it seems that these shootings have become more prevalent since the Clinton-era assault weapons ban expired. This would be worth looking into.
As an aside, I should note that I have been a long-time NRA member, because I have been against pretty much any form of gun control — though I rarely vote for the candidates they endorse, since I’m not a single-issue voter. In any case, I’m starting to rethink the gun issue. I believe our country needs to rethink this and have a real dialogue about the issue.
I’ve posted about an NPR item where they found out that there are more places to buy a gun in the United States than there are Starbucks stores in the entire world. I don’t see how this is healthy. Nor can I fathom any logical reason that people should be able to anonymously buy thousands of rounds of ammo on the Internet without any mechanisms in place for anyone to notice.
I disagree with those who say that in the wake of this tragedy, it’s not the time to talk about gun control. If not now, when?
I am not surprised that your post does not question the increasing spread of prescription psychiatric drugs, since very little of what’s written about the underlying causes of these mass shootings ever address this issue. Most of these shooters have been linked with taking SSRI’s, which are cash cows for Big Pharma. Big Pharma says these drugs are safe, but then Big Tobacco used to say cigarettes were safe too. Maybe it’s simply that wackos are more likely to be prescribed these drugs and more likely to commit mass shootings. But taken as a whole, the incidents of mass shootings have greatly increased since these drugs have started becoming more widely used.
What I definitely believe we should NOT do is to merely keep writing these incidents off to “senseless” acts of violence and taking it for granted that we can’t find answers. We need to, as a society, start asking questions and we need to keep following up on these questions even after the headlines of the latest incident fade. Maybe there’s no answers, but we have to at least try; we may gain some knowledge in the process that could save lives.
A man was just arrested in Indiana with 47 guns after threats to kill as many people as possible at a local elementary school. Someone, somewhere, even now, is planning another one of these things. I think that’s the thing that scares the hell out of me most of all.
Especially since the first mass shooting of last week was at a shopping mall 8 miles from my home that I had just left hours earlier.
James Holmes bought thousands of rounds of ammunition on the Internet.
I’d say that there might need to be limits on the amount of ammunition one could buy, although that would be far too easy to circumvent (as there wouldn’t be an instantaneous registry of what was purchased). That’s one reason that restricting ammo might not work (although it might be reasonable to restrict ammo for particular types of weapons, if that is possible — for example, no one should be able to buy shoulder launched missles).
Aside from that, although I haven’t looked at the exact numbers, it seems that these shootings have become more prevalent since the Clinton-era assault weapons ban expired. This would be worth looking into.
I can’t see any reason for personal use of assault weapons, so I would agree with that particular ban.
I disagree with those who say that in the wake of this tragedy, it’s not the time to talk about gun control. If not now, when?
It is always reasonable to talk about an issue, understand each other’s sides, and see if a reasonable middle ground can be reached. My concern is not that gun control is necessarily bad, but that it is attacking the symptom of the problem. We need to figure out how to stop these people before they even go and attempt to purchase the weapons, before they even plan whatever attack they plan.
I am not surprised that your post does not question the increasing spread of prescription psychiatric drugs, since very little of what’s written about the underlying causes of these mass shootings ever address this issue.
I was simply unfamiliar with the issue. I’m starting to see articles on that now. If you note, my post didn’t necessarily advocate drugs, but addressing mental health problems.
Most of these shooters have been linked with taking SSRI’s, which are cash cows for Big Pharma. Big Pharma says these drugs are safe, but then Big Tobacco used to say cigarettes were safe too.
And HFCS is safe as well. Yet another reason to be worried about big food and big agra and big whatever.