Adam Lanza Thoughts on the Newtown, CT. School Shootings

It’s a shame how quickly the horrific, but essentially isolated, shootings in Newtown, Ct. have been blown completely out of proportion.  It would be completely understandable if those directly affected were to react emotionally and demand some kind of  ill thought out draconian action be taken in response to the rampage of Adam Lanza.  Luckily, we are a people who believe that those closest to the action are not necessarily always the most competent to make such decisions when understandably experiencing severe emotional distress, or at least that used to be the case.

In today’s world it is apparently too much to expect that the focus of attention be on the victims and that during this time of mourning the general public acknowledge the pain being experienced by those still among us.  Does it not make sense to honor and remember those most affected by actually honoring and remembering those who lost their lives?  Unfortunately too many observers have decided to minimize the inherent tragedy of the actual series of events by instead attempting to make the shootings nothing but a part of a larger narrative which not in-coincidentally supports their agenda.

There are, of course, a number of obvious problems with the way certain groups have attempted to frame the larger issues surrounding the Lanza shootings, but perhaps nothing is more frightening than the fact that no matter the issue it seems that the “best” response is always to curtail or eliminate individual freedoms.  I am not going to argue that individual freedoms are always sacrosanct, look at the issue of abortions on demand for a good example, but the fact of the matter is that  restricting the individual freedoms of every citizen should only be considered after every other possible response is eliminated.  If one really considers what many of our illustrious opinion makers are advocating it would seem that they would like to ignore one of the founding principles of our legal system, that being the presumption of innocence rather than guilt.

The initial tragedy of innocent lives being lost is unfortunately in the process of being compounded by those who would cynically use those unfortunate deaths for partisan purposes.  Partisan purposes?  I direct you to an article published on December 17, 2012 and ask if  anyone can seriously make a case supporting The Telegraph’s decision to specifically reference the political affiliations of both parents?  It is true that the article provides a wealth of good information, but I have to wonder what the article would have contained had the registrations being different.

Although the previously referenced article did not advocate any particular course of action, including not taking a position on the issue of gun control, there is no dearth of articles reporting on those who do have some suggestions.  Politix, for example, reports that both of Connecticut’s Senators expressed concern over the role Adam Lanza’s interest in violent video games may have played in prompting him into engaging in his killing spree.  The report also pointed out that their views were fully supported by “Obama spokesman David Axelrod”.  On the other hand, the article concludes:

But it’s hard to imagine a feasible law that could emerge from concern over video games. As Politiconotes, last year the Supreme Court nixed CA’s law banning violent game sales to minors.

The interesting thing about the article’s conclusion is that it sees no irony in the fact that the Supreme Court found the CA law to be unconstitutional and yet there seems to be no corresponding concern about running up against the Second Amendment should those advocating stricter gun control laws be successful in their campaign.

It should come as no surprise that the fact that guns were used in the commission of the crime has resulted in those who wish to further eviscerate the Second Amendment loudly calling for a more restrictive environment.  While this cynical use of the occasion to further their agenda is to be expected I would suggest that the worst time to pass this kind of legislation, assuming sensible legislation is the goal, is at a time when emotions are high and the possibility of cooler heads prevailing is correspondingly low.There are any number of arguments which interested parties present in support of their favored position, but the truth of the matter is that anyone who has been paying attention has heard those very same arguments over and over for some years now.

For the record, I fall on the side of the second amendment and don’t really see the actual circumstances of this particular event as being a game changer either way. On the other hand, depending on the desires of those in power, it may still be used as an emotional focal point to whip up support for further restrictions on individual freedoms.  My point being that I see no need to rehash the same arguments most of us have heard more times than we care to count while at the same time I’d like to point out that nothing has really changed.  This does not suggest that I don’t have an opinion which I will now share in my final paragraph.

What about the mother?  I don’t mean to be rude or insensitive, but common sense would suggest that the importance of limiting ready access to guns  and ammunition to those of an unsound mind cannot be over estimated.  Multiple sources have been quoted which clearly show that Mrs. Lanza was not only aware of her son’s mental condition, but also fully cognizant of the extent of the problem.  It truly pains me to say it, but I would have to suggest that her failure to take adequate precautions  in the face of any number of danger signals forces me to suggest that her lack of action suggests to me behavior that might well rise to the level of criminal negligence.

I understand how unfeeling or harsh I may sound, but if we are truly concerned about preventing further tragedies and we are truly interested in learning lessons from events such as this than are not the lives which might be saved in the future worth a little discomfort in the present?  Should we not ensure that the loss of these innocent lives at least teach the proper lessons?  We must forget agendas and ideological positions and take a hard look at the facts and the facts in this case suggest that although the mother obviously did not deserve to pay for her mistakes with her life, there were certainly decisions which were made that in retrospect were both foolish and dangerously naive.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to any comments.

Advertisement