Old arguments bog down gun debate

opinion@dailylobo.com

I am from Connecticut. And for the past month, I’ve been in the midst of countless discussions and debates about what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown on Dec. 14. I’ve heard opinions from friends who know families who lost children in the massacre that day. From friends and relatives who work in the Connecticut public school systems, who are now worried for their own safety and the safety of their students. From countless frightened mothers and fathers from my hometown. From friends who were on the scene that first day covering the story for local newspapers and TV stations. From many friends who are legal, law-abiding gun owners. From friends who would love to see the repeal of the Second Amendment and all guns made illegal for nongovernment personnel. And opinions from friends who would rather see mental-illness awareness as the important issue to be discussed, instead of the current fixation on matters of gun control, sales and ownership.

However, much of the national debate, as well as the debate among the lawmakers in the Connecticut General Assembly, is focused on gun control as the main issue, with increased strictness being the order of the day.

What I think, and what a majority of parents and other people around here also appear to think, is that the simple truth of the matter is that if someone wants to kill, he or she will find a way to kill. It doesn’t matter whether the person kills with a Bushmaster, a Glock and a Sig Sauer, with a giant fertilizer bomb packed into a truck or even a simple knife. Such a motivated individual will find a way to accomplish his or her goal and take out as many victims as possible, whether by using legally owned guns, illegally owned guns or something else entirely. That’s why many of us in Connecticut think gun control debates have no place being so front and center in the Sandy Hook shooting discussion and in the subsequent response to the tragedy. Suspect Adam Lanza, like Timothy McVeigh, was extremely committed to ending countless lives, and I for one am sure he would’ve found a way to do it even without access to his mother’s firearms.

Also, another strike against advocating for stricter gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting is that Connecticut has a very strict assault weapons ban, as well as perhaps the most strict gun laws in general in the entire country. Clearly, none of that did any good here.

At the risk of sounding circular, laws work because they are meant to be followed by rational citizens who respect the rule of law.

For example, rational individuals will obey red lights and wait their turn even if there are no other cars in sight, just because it’s the law. An individual such as Lanza, or any of the many shooters still in the national consciousness from previous incidents around the country, was clearly not thinking rationally while planning and executing his killing spree. Such an individual would clearly not follow the assault weapons laws and gun-free school zones laws in place. This is why a gun control discussion is inapplicable here and to other tragedies like it: irrational individuals, regardless of their motivations and reasons for their irrational actions, do not care about and do not follow laws, so enacting tougher legislation will do nothing to stop them.

To summarize, laws placing more restrictions upon rational actors will accomplish nothing, because rational actors are not causing the problems. Rational actors, by definition, would not act irrationally in defiance of the law, while irrational actors, by definition, would act in open defiance of laws, rendering such laws’ intentions moot.

There have also been debates all over the news about whether putting armed guards or police in public schools would cause more harm than good to students. Every parent I’ve talked to, as well as a number of nonparent friends, is in favor of armed guards or police in schools. For example, one parent I talked to, who works in the public school system, brought up the point that at one of the middle schools that she works at, all they have is a greeter, aged 21, who sits at a desk and requires people to sign in when they enter the school. That’s it. No guards, no metal detectors, no one with any security training, nothing. Furthermore, several nonteacher parents have told me that they want their kids to be protected by someone with training and a gun, and have told me that they don’t feel comfortable with the greeter system many schools around the state employ.

So perhaps this isn’t a very traditional column today; it is really more of an examination of the reactions and thoughts of someone feeling the effects of a mass shooting in his community.

There are no statistics, no citations, no studies mentioned in this column, as I normally feature. All I offer are honest observations and ruminations on individuals and society in the wake of a tragedy that still leaves me and the state very shaken.

However, I ask that you, the reader, don’t dismiss this column out of hand due to its broad emotionalism and reliance on anecdotal accounts. After reading this, take some time to really think about what we from Connecticut have been living with for the past month, along with those from Webster, N.Y., Aurora, Colo. and countless others affected by recent shootings. Please take some time out of your day to put yourself in the place of a parent, sibling, relative, friend or first responder from Sandy Hook. Consider your emotions alongside the facts and realize that a constructive, original dialogue, not just a rehash of the same old gun control talking points, is needed in order to take effective action to stop events like this from continuing their disturbing trend of becoming all too commonplace.