Two days have passed since the Connecticut school shootings, and the nation is still, rightly, in shock. It's not in shock that there was a shooting but that it was perpetrated on the most innocent of our citizens, defenseless children who never harmed anyone. Unfortunately, the identity of the victims is clouding the judgment of adults.
In the first place, gun control advocates have been whipped into a frenzy. We need to ban assault rifles, they say, we need tighter gun control. Never letting facts get in the way, they conveniently ignore the simple fact that these weapons were lawfully owned, licensed properly and used, by the owner, in a responsible manner. At this time, the only unknown about the ownership of these weapons is how they were stored. Otherwise, they were legitimately owned and licensed by the shooter's deceased mother.
The son stole the weapons to which he had no lawful right. If his mother didn't store them properly, she bears some responsibility for the tragedy that ensued. But if they were properly stored, we have to look at the manufacturer of whatever safe in which the weapons were stored. Even then, perhaps this kid was a genius who was able to break into the safe. At this point, this is a huge unknown.
The bottom line is that a seriously troubled, sick young man used lawful weapons to commit a horrible crime. The focus should be on the mental illness of the shooter, not the nature of the weapons that he used and the carnage that he wrought with them. He could have improvised an IED and effected even more terror. Had he done that, should we ban fertilizer?
Why isn't there more focus on how someone with such murderous tendencies slipped through the mental health system? Were there any warnings? If there weren't, how are we as a society supposed to prepare for such an eventuality? Frankly, that's like trying to be prepared for a train wreck, or an airplane crash. But even in those cases, there is usually a mechanical reason to which we can point as the cause of the event.
Sometimes, however, there is no rational explanation.
Almost as bad as the anti-gun reaction has been the veritable feeding frenzy by the press. The press has long anointed itself as the caretaker of all news for the nation which, to a degree, makes some sense. But it has an editorial responsibility that accrues to that duty as the sharer of news. In this country, for example, pictures of mangled bodies from traffic accidents aren't shown on television or in the papers. The names of victims are withheld until families are notified. Arguments can be made that those are incorrect decisions, but at very least the argument can be made that thoughtful consideration of its audience and the families of victims has been engaged.
How, then, can the press explain its distressingly ridiculous decision to put children who attended Sandy Hook Elementary School on television the night of the shooting to ask them questions? If we're not putting mangled bodies on news and in the papers because of the effects it will have on viewers, young and old, why then would we put children who have survived an unimaginable tragedy mere hours after it ended? I don't care how cloyingly sympathetic the interviewer was with the child. That child should not be giving his or her opinions hours after enduring a shooting in which his or her classmates were slaughtered.
And what of the parents' decision to allow their children to be interviewed at nine o'clock at night on the day of such a national tragedy? Gun control advocates are all worked up about the weapons used in this insidious crime. What do they think of parents irresponsibly putting their loved ones on television to talk about what they witnessed short hours after it happened? Why aren't state officials looking to take those children from those parents for endangering their mental health?
I am neither a parent nor a gunowner. I wish I had had children and someday I will own a rifle. But the fact that I'm not in either of these groups doesn't lessen the validity of my opinion. Candidly, I think that not being in either group gives me the necessary distance to look at these issues with less emotion that those who are in them. That doesn't mean that being a parent or a gunowner renders that opinion invalid, it simply means that my opinions come without raw, first-person emotion.
What is missing from all the post-tragedy chatter is perspective. Talking heads are asking psychiatrists to provide it for them. They should be equipped with it already. So should parents.
When I think about this I'm reminded of the Keanu Reeves character in Parenthood who noted that you need a license to drive a car, own a gun and get married, but you don't need a license to be a parent. I think it's highly ironic that people who don't need licenses -- news anchors and parents -- are the ones who most need licensing.
(c) 2012 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment