Age Range: 6-56
Bullets Per Victim: 2-11
Guns Used: 3
Monster: 1
Hundreds, if not
thousands, of pieces (like this one) have already been written in response to the recent atrocity that was the
Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, where 20 children and six adults were brutally
murdered by 20-year-old Adam Lanza. While investigators continue to dig for answers, the nation as a whole has initiated numerous dialogues regarding the prevention of similar incidents in the future.
The brunt of the discussions have revolved around the long-standing issue of gun control, which is indeed a problem. But there are others.
As shown above, the nation with the fewest regulations on firearms (of those listed) struggled the most when it came to homicide. Certainly it is a graphic with an agenda, but the numbers cannot be argued with: loose gun regulation will inevitably allow for more murders.
But Sandy Hook is not about gun control. And here's why:
1. Connecticut has one of the nation's strictest arms regulation policies. According to the Washington Times, to own a gun in the state, one must apply for a permit after the age of 21 and undergo both a safety course and background check. If a national gun control plan was to be launched, it would most likely look something like this.
That being said, Lanza was a mere twenty-years-old, and not legally permitted to own a firearm. But using force, he obtained one anyways. Were any gun control legislation to be passed, the law would be intended for a sector of the population that wouldn't comply regardless. As Henry D'Andrea says in his article, "Criminals don't follow laws they don't want to; that's why they're criminals in the first place."
2. Rather than reacting to this event with cries for stricter gun control, we as a nation should embrace reform in how we deal with mental illness. Although we will never know exactly what was going through Lanza's mind as he committed undoubtedly the crime of the year, if not the decade, mental health certainly played a role.
Illnesses of the mind --depression, anxiety, OCD-- have over time accumulated an associated stigma. In addition to causing detriment to those diagnosed, this stigma also prevents potentially ill patients from reaching out for help in the first place.
This pigeonholing occurs not only on the playground or in the high school classroom, but throughout one's life. Studies show that 20% of employees who divulge their mental illness to their employers are then let go.
Even if patients do bolster up the courage to seek help, oftentimes they find it unavailable. From 2009 to 2011, nearly $1.6 billion in funding was cut from mental health spending, closing clinics and leaving patients without care.
Lanza's act was not one of spontaneity. A lifetime of mental anguish and social neglect erupted last Friday, an eruption that, with access to the proper medical care, could have been curbed.
3. By posthumously delving into the life of Adam Lanza, the media is playing right into his game. In committing this massacre, Lanza sought in death what he seemingly did not receive in life: attention. And he's not alone in this pursuit.
Lanza has received in the past few days more attention, albeit negative, than anyone else in the country. After years of trying to get noticed, he resorted to the dastardly in a last ditch attempt to have his name remembered.
Time after time the media has "monsterized" the culprits of these mass murders, allowing others seeking recognition an outlet to attain it. Although these criminals are remembered in a negative light, they are remembered.
The media should focus their efforts not on picking apart the suspect, but on learning from their actions. Separate the incident from the issue of gun control. Raise mental health awareness. Move forward.
2. Rather than reacting to this event with cries for stricter gun control, we as a nation should embrace reform in how we deal with mental illness. Although we will never know exactly what was going through Lanza's mind as he committed undoubtedly the crime of the year, if not the decade, mental health certainly played a role.
This pigeonholing occurs not only on the playground or in the high school classroom, but throughout one's life. Studies show that 20% of employees who divulge their mental illness to their employers are then let go.
Even if patients do bolster up the courage to seek help, oftentimes they find it unavailable. From 2009 to 2011, nearly $1.6 billion in funding was cut from mental health spending, closing clinics and leaving patients without care.
Lanza's act was not one of spontaneity. A lifetime of mental anguish and social neglect erupted last Friday, an eruption that, with access to the proper medical care, could have been curbed.
3. By posthumously delving into the life of Adam Lanza, the media is playing right into his game. In committing this massacre, Lanza sought in death what he seemingly did not receive in life: attention. And he's not alone in this pursuit.
Lanza has received in the past few days more attention, albeit negative, than anyone else in the country. After years of trying to get noticed, he resorted to the dastardly in a last ditch attempt to have his name remembered.
Time after time the media has "monsterized" the culprits of these mass murders, allowing others seeking recognition an outlet to attain it. Although these criminals are remembered in a negative light, they are remembered.
The media should focus their efforts not on picking apart the suspect, but on learning from their actions. Separate the incident from the issue of gun control. Raise mental health awareness. Move forward.
I agree wholeheartedly with your third point. The media frenzy only encourages similar behavior in the future. While the media can't truly be blamed for what happened, it is hard to argue that the coverage has helped decrease violence. Often I think why America? Why does America have so much more gun violence than other nations? Is it gun regulations? Or something more cultural? I'm more drawn to the second point, that there is something culturally wrong with our country. Haven't we made violence seem less real through our video game culture, a culture predominantly American? And media coverage is tied in to that cultural difference. But when I come to this conclusion, that it is a cultural problem, I become depressed by what this implies. A cultural change is much more difficult than a gun law. What scares me is that if it's cultural, how can we alter the problem? To this end, I found your second point enlightening, however wonder if we need to treat a disorder or if that disorder is stemming from some other cultural problem. Either way, I wish not to draw away from the tragedy, only find your post interesting for its focus on more realistic solutions.
ReplyDeleteReading your comment, I began to see how intertwined the three points I highlighted really are. Obviously the tragedy is horrific, and we must all take time to mourn for and reflect on the loss our country went through last week. That being said, it is in times like these that change is most attainable, because both citizens and politicans alike feel an emotional attachment to the issues at hand, and we should capitalize on that chance to both begin to rebuild a broken town, as well as take steps to ensure something like this cannot happen again.
ReplyDeleteOn that note, I heard an interesting news report the other day. It talked about a texas plan to arm teachers, in order to defend schools in case of situations like the one that occurred here. The first thing I thought about was MAD and how disfunctional and destructive that was. Thinking of the effort required to reach proliferation, I think perhaps we can find parallels.
DeleteUnfortunately, though spurred to act, politicians are politicians, and other problems like the fiscal cliff will still take precedent. The NRA's lobbying power is immense. And a large group of people (about 48% I think) still don't want gun control.
Thus, I wonder what solutions exist that rely not on gun control, given such a solution would be more if not the only one that is attainable.
This issue is seriously serious.
ReplyDeleteHow much of this do you think stems from our glamorization of violence in games, movies, books, etc?
ReplyDeleteFor example, books written today (compared to 50 years ago) seem to find it necessary to drop the reader into an intense if not violent scene. What does this say about the values of our society, and how can those values have possibly affected the Sandy Hook Shooter?
In terms of gun control, would 20 children have been killed if this man did not have a gun? No. If there were extreme limits on guns, making them completely unavailable to the general public, deaths from accidents and extreme mental disturbances like the one displayed at Sandy Creek would not occur. Period. The gangs and mobs would still own guns and use them yes. But there is no political policy that can keep that from happening. Rather, it is politicians job to make the country as safe as they possibly can. By allowing people to have guns, they are not doing that. People that argue for their right to bear arms for protection purposes are kidding themselves. Maybe it lets them sleep better at night, but in reality, they are far worse off in country where the public can own guns. Pure and simple. The number of cases where people who owned guns stopped violence and crime is dwarfed compared to the times they used them for violence.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that yes, had there been stricter regulations on gun ownership, this horrific event may have been prevented, I also believe that, had Lanza not committed this crime, someone else would have. No matter how strict the regulations, people who want guns badly enough will be able to get their hands on them (The same argument can be applied to the world of illegal drugs). That is why I promote the other two solutions over stricter gun control. If we can foment a population that has no desire to commit such atrocities, THAT is truly the most effective way to relinquish gun related crimes. Although gun control would make it more difficult to bring about events such as the one at Sandy Hook, it would never completely eliminate the problem.
DeleteMy problem with this argument is that rooting out people who struggle with mental illness is more challenging than tracking who has firearms. In most cases where the mentally ill are considering committing a crime of this magnitude, they are isolated and not in a position where they can be monitored by officials. It would be far easier to track who is registered to own a firearm with tighter gun control. The biggest problem is that people have access to automatic weapons with large clip sizes. Improving gun control has a great capacity to slow the violence in the United States- even if it can't completely solve it.
DeleteI am not arguing for a system of surveillance for those diagnosed with mental illnesses. Rather, I am promoting a nation in which it is not difficult for someone to reach out and get the help they need. Right now there exists a significant stigma towards those diagnosed with mental illnesses, a stigma that has long outstayed its welcome.
DeleteThis is more of an idealist, preventative viewpoint, rather than a immediate solution. By bettering mental health care throughout the country, the "monitoring" you mention will not be necessary. People need to feel comfortable (and have access to- fiscally and geographically) reaching out for help.
Declan, you bring up a lot of great points. I've actually been quite irritated by some of the commentary on gun control laws that I've seen on Facebook and Twitter, and you summed up the opposing arguments perfectly. The fact that Connecticut has one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and that Lanza acquired the weapons illegally (he was underage) highlights the irony in stricter gun control. Criminals always find a way. Some people may say that Lanza's mother shouldn't have been able to have guns in her house since Adam's mental disorders could imply a safety risk, but where do you draw the line on "mental disabilities", when a large chunk of the nation claims to be affected by some sort of mental illness. The other thing is that we live in a nation of 100s of millions of people. These few isolated incidents, albeit more than usual in the past month, cause panic more than anything, and the media loves to play up on them. I think that the underlying problem is that our culture predicates gun use as an acceptable form of defense or self-protection, whereas in other countries (ie Canada as portrayed in Bowling for Columbine), the idea of owning a gun seems absurd. Until we change our cultural narrative with regards to gun use, these outbreaks will continue to happen.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment! I agree that it is difficult to "draw the line" on such a complex issue as mental health. And exactly: what we don't need are attempts to pinpoint specific risks, as we will never be able to accommodate everyone. We need to focus on the whole: promote mental health for all, and shift the way the media covers these tragedies.
DeleteAnother deal is the stabbing in China. I think some 22 children were killed, and there were no guns involved.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate the second and third point you made here. I also did some research about mental health coverage for a different class and stumbled upon this article: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/12/after-newtown-shootings-questions-about-mental-health-insurance-coverage.html
ReplyDeleteA quarter of the population has a diagnosable mental health problem...and less than half receive any sort of treatment. This is ridiculous. Though stricter gun control laws might help, it would not nearly help as much as simple mental health coverage! We need to make testing for mental illnesses a norm and priority...and offer treatment options for those who have an illness. The sad reality is that we can't count on parents to recognize their child's mental illness or take the initiative to get them tested. However, making testing a normal procedure during a check-up isn't extraordinarily difficult. Many doctor's offices already have the materials needed to do the testing...and it seems painless and straight-forward. It just, at this point, needs to stop going unnoticed.
Your third point is also crucial. Whether the media realizes or not, they are making the killer famous. Yes, it's important for us to know who did it, however the coverage about Lanza was blown out of proportion!
Thanks for the comment and the link! Certainly an interesting article.
DeleteThank you for substantiating my argument. Simply put, making mental health a priority diminishes the problem at hand both more efficiently and humanely. As you said, the process is really not all that difficult to implement, as the infrastructure is already in place to do so.
The goal is not to punish those with mental illnesses by forcing them into seclusion or treatment. Rather, we as a nation need to desire to help our peers, who as you said make up almost 25% of the country, and in turn help ourselves.
This is definitely interesting because while most news sources touched on the fact that Lanza had to have been mentally unstable, the largest focus in the media has been about gun control. I agree that it is important to teach people about different mental illnesses and remove some of the stigma behind them so that people affected are not afraid to get treatment. You didn't go into gun control in this post, but I think the mental aspect and gun control aspect go together in this situation. I am not very familiar with gun laws, however, I believe people should pass a psychological exam before getting a gun license and/or buying a gun. What perplexes me though is, even if a person passes the exam and obtains weapons, what prevents situations were someone else uses your weapon? This is one case, but I remember watching Nightline once about a kid that shot his dad. There been several cases were people have taken someone else's weapon. There has also been more than one case of someone accidentally shooting someone or even of people killing family members. So how do we prevent this from happening (i.e. someone else using your weapon)? Even if you pass a mental stability test, that doesn't guarantee that your kid or neighbor will.
ReplyDeleteAlso, off of psychological health, and speaking strictly about guns-- it is estimated that Americans have enough private guns to have approximately one for ever other household (in reality, there are many people with several guns, and other's with none). So how would you control or reduce this? You could make stricter laws for getting new guns, but most people won't want to give up what they already had. Gun advocates are also so loud in this country that they even attempted petitioning to deport Piers Morgan after he voiced his belief for the need of stricter gun control. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/us/piers-morgan-guns-debate/index.html It's definitely a complicated topic with many factors to consider.
ReplyDelete