The Connecticut gunman has been identified Adam Lanza, 20, and the names of the children and teachers who fell victim to this violence have also been released:
Charlotte Bacon, 6
Daniel Barden, 7
Rachel Davino, 29
Olivia Engel, 6
Josephine Gay, 7
Ana Marquez-Greene, 6
Dylan Hockley, 6
Dawn Hocksprung, 47
Madeline Hsu, 6
Catherine Hubbard, 6
Chase Kowalski, 7
Jesse Lewis, 6
James Mattioli, 6
Grace McDonnell, 7
Anne Marie Murphy, 52
Emilie Parker, 6
Jack Pinto, 6
Noah Pozner, 6
Caroline Previdi, 6
Jessica Rekos, 6
Avielle Richman, 6
Lauren Rousseau, 30
Mary Sherlach, 56
Victoria Soto, 27
Benjamin Wheeler, 6
Allison Wyatt, 6
Lanza's mother, Nancy Lanza, was also found dead.
After seeing this list, what do you think of the way that people react to shootings by focusing on the the shooter and their motivation, as opposed to focusing on those who died? What about the obsession with gun control that I've seen in the comments on the following post? There are other factors, after all--mental health, among other things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I think the better question would be that has the US become a country dominated by shooting spree. In California, a (http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/16/278343/new-shooting-in-california-shocks-us/) gunman fired fifty shots in the sky in a shopping mall before arrested by the police. In Alabama, ( http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/16/gunman-wounds-3-at-alabama-hospital-before-being-fatally-shot-police-say) a person with an AK47 killed two men before taken down by the special force. I think even the National Rifle Association could not adequately give a strong argument against this phenomenon. But I agree with Matthew for his comments to the previous post that nothing significant would happen at the end. I mean something minor such as the Brady Act might result at the end, but the National Rifle Association is just so powerful on the Hill that a complete gun control is just impossible.
The second amendment allows the citizens the right to bear arm. The intent of this piece of constitution is to make possible a standing militia that can counter dictatorship regime in the future. Personally I think this does not apply to the modern America anymore. Furthermore, the guns that the gunman in Connecticut used were found to belong to his mother. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/friends-of-gunmans-mother-his-first-victim-recall-her-as-generous.html?_r=0") Apparently his mother is a huge fan in guns and those guns were bought for the purpose of collection. This greatly deviates from the idea that a gun is supposed to be used for self-defense.
That being said, I am not saying that with a better or complete gun control (or just banning the guns) we would be rid of gun-related crimes. In countries where guns are banned, gun-realated crimes are definitely still a relevant issue. I agree with Shannon, that "other factors" matter too.
I think something Morgan Freeman really sums up the issue well.
"It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody."
I think that no matter how tight gun control is, there will still be ways for people who want to get guns to get them. To stop these increasing amounts of shooting sprees, we need to stop making the killers into famous people and there needs to be better identification of mental illness that may lead to terrible events like these.
I feel that Sam brings up a really interesting point. The things that mass murders have done is horrible, and no doubt deserves media attention because of their appalling absolutely horrible acts. I feel as Sam does, we can crack down on gun control as much as we want, but there are other ways to obtain weapons. Crime may go down if we have stricter gun control laws, but as the population is increasing, we need to realize that there will be more and more mentally unstable people. If we can find a way to identify these people more often, than I feel safety will increase and hopefully prevent these terrible events.
To answer the original question about why people focus on the shooter rather than the victims, I believe that it is a coping mechanism, a way for people hearing about it in the news not to feel like they are in danger, too. People need to see a reason why the shooter was motivated to do something so horrific. Viewers need to feel that it can't just happen to anyone. Unfortunately, that is why people don't focus on the innocent people who lost their lives. While they obviously get coverage, we have the list of names of course, the main questions on everyone's mind after an event like this is who did it and why.
I agree with what Eli said, perhaps focusing on the shooter really is a coping mechanism of sorts. It is certainly much easier to concentrate on one single perpetrator than the grief of all his felled victims. Tightening Gun control really does seem like the more prudent course of action, yet such regulations are hard to pass, especially because the second amendment presents all citizens with the right to bear arms. I also agree with Shannon in that other factors play into such events, such as mental health. These topics must also be addressed in an attempt to prevent further similar occurrences.
I agree with Kurtis that focusing on gun control is the true path to solving this issue. Many people are producing an argument for mental health awareness and increased treatment for the types of people that are usually responsible for these attacks. However, I do not think this approach will yield any success at all as it ignores the true root of the problem. Without a gun, all of these insane evildoers would be unable to cause such devastation. Perhaps I am being radical by challenging the Bill of Rights itself but the right to bear arms was a provision meant for a previous era. In the 21st century these types of weapons are not necessary and a citizen's right to hold them must be repealed.
Even though getting completely rid of guns for civilians might help the problem, I do not think it will completely get rid of these school shooting sprees; there are other weapons that can cause devastation. The Hillsdale High School shooting that was attempted a few years ago? The guy had a sword, homemade pipe bombs, and a chainsaw; the high school was extremely lucky not to have anyone get hurt, because even if the chainsaw had jammed, the bombs were ready to hurt people.
My initial reaction to the shooting was that the government would definitely crack down on regulations they already have set forth. However, as I was browsing around yahoo news and I learned that people against stricter gun control laws were arguing that the principal who died confronting one of the gunman should have had a gun on herself. I was a little disgusted by this remark.
In terms of gun control - at this point in time I don't think there is any real effective method of controlling who can have a gun and who cannot because if you really want one, you can definitely get one.
I agree with Kevins point that we dont really need to counter a future dictator.
Im really sorry that this shooting happened :(
I agree with Koshy's point that although mental illness is a problem, it is not number one. Guns are what they are using to kill and if they continue to have easy access to guns these sorts of things will continue to happen. If Lanza had only access to a knife, a lot fewer children would have died in Newtown. The difference between a knife and a gun that can shoot mulitple rounds per second are incredibly different. Insane people will always be in the world, and we should help them, but stopping their means of killing people is a much bigger issue.
In response to everyone talking about how the media portrays mass shootings, I agree, but this is pretty idealistic. The media is out to make money and they are out to get the best story. Besides talking about just the shooting itself, who the shooter is is a story that, sadly, people are wanting to hear. I don't know how this could be fixed because that is really where the main story is.
Post a Comment