Sandy Hook

[sleigh]

Predictably, those on one side proclaim that the problem is that too many people have access to guns. Predictably, those on the other side are saying that if the teachers or principal had been armed, the shooter would never have killed so many children. Predictably, religious fanatics are saying that this was caused because God has been banished from schools. Predictably, politicians and others are saying this is an example of "evil" walking among us. Perhaps predictably, I don't think any of those positions are the real answer.

Before I go further, here are the caveats. I currently do not own a gun -- well, I do have a German double-barreled percussion cap pistol from the 1700s on the wall of my office, but as far as I know, it's not in working order. I have taken a gun safety course, and a concealed carry course, and frankly, I enjoyed the target shooting we did as part of the courses. I'm considering purchasing a gun mostly for that reason. I do have several swords here in my office, so it's obviously not that I believe no one should possess weapons. But… I'd also be perfectly comfortable if it were illegal or extremely difficult for a private citizen to own a military grade weapon, even the "stripped down" versions that don't allow full auto fire, or if high-capacity magazines were banned.

There is definitely a problem with violence in this country. When one graphs out the number of violent assaults in the industrialized countries, the USA is the clear outlier -- we're way at the top of the chart. But are guns to blame? If they were, then other countries with similar numbers of guns-per-household should also have similarly high number of mass murders… and they don't. According to this site, " In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime."

Adam Lanza wasn't evil, but I doubt he was sane. No one who possesses a shred of empathy would be capable of massacring children as he did, and lack of empathy is a symptom of psychopathy. That's not evil; that's a mental health issue. And those who like Mike Huckabee are saying that "we have systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?" -- well, I don't personally believe in God in any case, but a deity who is so petty that he'd allow children to be killed because he's ticked off at not being mentioned isn't a deity deserving of worship. Not mine, anyway.

So it's not access to guns or lack of gun controls that caused the problem. It's not Capital-E Evil; it's not a ticked-off Great White Man In The Sky. It's something else: something broken in our society and our culture. Something in us.

There's a quality (or qualities) in our society that permits or encourages or allows this kind of thing to happen far too often. I don't know what that shadow is. Maybe it's because effectively treating mental illnesses is something only those with sufficient money have easy access to. Perhaps it's because as a culture we worship and glorify violence: just look at our television shows and our movies. Maybe it's because we'll allow our kids to watch a show where people are routinely murdered, but we won't let them watch two people making love. Maybe it's because when we see someone who is obviously troubled, we too often remain silent. Maybe it's all of those things or none of them.

I don't claim to know. But I do think it's a conversation we as a society need to have: without anger, without rancor, without demonizing those who don't think the same way we do. Because if we don't… well, this will just be another in an endless series of tragedies.

(And if you comment, know that I will be deleting comments that I find too contentious or fanatical. If you want to rant, you're welcome to do that on your own blog. Not here. On the other hand, I am interested in what you think -- if you can discuss that in a reasonable, polite manner.)

Comments

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

B & K -- I don't know if you're addressing me or cakmpls... but for me, I *don't* know quite how to sift through the statistics and anecdotal information, especially when they result in contradiction (often, I suspect, based on the agenda of the organization doing the research). I'd love to see someone like Nate Silver burrow into the statistics on the ownership and usage of firearsm, on the various forms of gun control laws, and what correlation there might be (or might not be) between any of those and the incidence of violent deaths. I don't have the math for the job, unfortunately. For that matter, B, I would love to hear your analysis of the same.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Oh, they're talking to me.

Finding for every study an equal and opposite study is very frustrating. One of the problems, I think, is that the accepted definition of "mass murder" is apparently "at least 4 dead, not counting the shooter." But that seems to me a pointless limitation when one is trying to get at causes of violence, and "mass murder" (at least by that definition) is not always what is being studied. So how to assess, and how to compare?

I started more that ties in to what I just said, but it got long, so I am putting it in my LJ. You're invited over.