On the Newton Massacre: Why?
by Dr. David Mandler
The massacre on Friday in Newton, Connecticut, has shattered the lives of countless families who have lost their most precious treasures in a few terrifying moments. Such a senseless slaughter of children and the heroic adults in charge of their education makes even the most callous of us pause and ask the inevitable: why?
Why did Adam Lanza, the shooter, have access to such devastating firearms? Why does any civilian need such weapons in the first place? Hunting animals certainly does not require automatic weapons. Of course, the whole idea of hunting “for fun” strikes me as an utterly selfish expression of a personality that enjoys wanton destruction. But who am I to judge? As long as hunting itself is not illegal, my personal aversion towards it has no bearing on other people’s choices. So, the first step, in my view, in fostering respect for human life is to create a climate in which the life of wild animals is valued to such an extent that it would not even occur to anyone to extinguish the life of a complex thinking and feeling animal just for the fun of it.
And if not for hunting, why would anyone need a gun? For self-protection from others with guns, of course! After all, the gun lobby has told us many times that “it’s not guns that kill people; it’s people who kill people.” No, guns do not kill people. But they don’t give birth and nurture people, either. Even the most ardent member of the NRA would be unable to argue against the fact that semi-automatic weapons enable people to kill others with more efficiency and in much larger numbers. Adam Lanza armed with a kitchen knife would not have been able to murder 27 people.
Only when a significant number of people who should not have guns do have guns is it necessary for everyone to have a gun.
Why did Adam Lanza decide to shoot 27 people to death? It is too early to answer that question. According to some news articles, Lanza had a personality disorder. Shooters with mental disorders seems to be a recurrent theme. Yet, it’s perfectly reasonable. Who else but a mentally deranged individual would think about shooting five to ten-year-olds in a school? While our instinctive response is a resounding nobody would, I beg to differ.
Don’t the most popular video games today involve massive amounts of shooting and increasingly more realistic graphics that allow the virtual shooters to “enjoy” seeing their victims die in gruesome and often grotesquely exaggeratedly detailed ways? Are these games, as some would argue, only serve to channel the natural human tendencies for aggression of violence into a harmless dimension where nobody really gets hurt? Perhaps. I, for one, find the prevalence and popularity of violent video games quite a disturbing testimony of humanity and its discontents even in the unlikely scenario that the mass shooters of the recent past had never played a single violent video game prior to their shooting sprees. Again, a massacre such as the one in Newton should make us think twice about promoting senseless killings (especially for entertainment) as these video games desensitize young people to seeing bodies mowed down by a hail of gunfire.
Why was Adam Lanza not treated for his “personality disorder” in time? This, too, is a question to be answered. What we do know is that far too many people today have either no access to mental health services or have only inadequate or occasional access mainly as a result of having no health insurance or having inadequate health insurance. This, too, must change. Those of us whose eyes tear up at the images of screaming children rushing out of their school building in single file owe it to the children who were taken out in body bags. We need to demand from our elected officials–and our insurance companies–that mental health issues be taken seriously in our country. As with anything, the more organized and unified our voices are, the better.
Finally, why did God allow such a gruesome mass slaughter? To this question, we have no answer. God has “allowed” countless equally horrific events in human history. For some, this is proof that God is either not benevolent or not omnipotent. For others, it puts an end to the “notion” of God. Still others see it as an inevitable consequence of free will that God has granted every human being. We are all free to act upon our will even if it results in the horrible loss of other human beings. It is not my place, nor would it be appropriate for me, to moralize here. The pain is too fresh. Our tears shoot up from a bottomless pit of deep sorrow in reaction to such a heavy loss of young lives.
My conclusions did not need such a horrible act of violence to come to the fore. Yet, it is the best occasion for me to reiterate what I have always believed. We need to act as kind, responsible and compassionate human beings today, tomorrow and every day. We need to put an end to the gun culture that has sprouted so many weeds in our social garden, choking the life out of the diverse and beautiful flowers that are our children. We need to reexamine the way in which our institutions deal with the mentally ill. We need to look within ourselves and honestly ask ourselves whether or not we have done everything (or anything) in our power to make those around us feel good about themselves and about others in their environment.
We need to develop a sense of responsibility for one another in which others’ well-being is as important to us as is our own–since in the final analysis, everyone is inextricably connected to everyone else.
A part of me has died on Friday along with those 27 innocents.
I fervently hope that my remaining vital parts redouble their efforts to stimulate a strong desire in me to do good, be kind, and feel compassion for every human being on Earth and especially those in my immediate vicinity for whom I can make a difference.
David Mandler 
I love this line: “Only when a significant number of people who should not have guns have guns does everyone need to have a gun.” I feel like the opinion of some gun-enthusiasts that “If the victims had been armed, then fewer people would’ve been killed,” is a perhaps-unwitting suggestion that we fortify our public places. Who wants to live in a country where you have to pack a pistol to be able to eat at a restaurant with your family? Who wants to see a movie in the theater when at any moment the whole place could erupt in a firefight? If a civil society is our ideal, then how can we reconcile this with the world that widespread possession of firearms creates? What it seems to come down to for me is this: if we let fear drive us to arm ourselves, then that very same fear comes to color our lives, and who wants to live in a constant state of terror? But if we become courageous enough to confront our fears without violence, and with faith in the power of our ideals to positively transform our environment, then, I believe, monstrosities like what happened at Sandy Hook will cease to be the commonplace events they are in America today.
In 2010, 17 children were stabbed to death and around 50 injured during a knife attack at a school in China. In China again, yesterday a man stabbed 22 children and 1 elderly woman before being stopped by security guards. I do not think any more gun control will stop the mentally ill from attacking the public. If not a gun, a knife, if not a knife, a bomb. No legislation could have stopped the massacre.
Thank you for your comment, John. I have made a google search and found that no child died in yesterday’s knife attack in China and that in 2010, eight children died in a a knife attack, not 17. Then, in the copy-cat attacks that followed, no child died…
I maintain my point about the probability of FATAL wounds occasioned by gun attacks. Clearly, it would be less likely that a mentally disturbed person would set out to make a bomb then get a gun to kill. It’s not for nothing that we haven’t had any bombings of schools in the U.S. or knife attacks either.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
on CNN
This has really been a tragic event in the course of history. I have to say, though, that although guns were created for the sole sake of killing, guns are no worse than pencils or knives. By no means am I depreciating the horror of the tragedy that transpired here, but anything can be used to kill. I am not supporting guns either way, but in New York, there are still guns everywhere and criminals running amok, even with laws banning guns. Many guns are illegally smuggled into the country, and that’s the problem with gun control. What I’m trying to get here is that rather than guns being at fault, it lies inherently in the mind of the person committing the crime.
Regarding the shooter’s personality disorder, I feel that most mass murderers are seen as ‘normal’ and hidden from society. The inner workings of the mind is a mysterious thing and can change rapidly. I honestly do not believe there is not one time a person has not felt enough hatred towards someone as to want to kill him or her, but set morals keep most of us from doing so. I don’t think anyone is normal, and will ever be ‘normal’. It’s simply a matter of perspective from an individual’s point of view. Justice’ Sin, Values – they are all different from person to person.
It is by no means to justify the killing that transpired here, but I must say that everyone is unique – sometimes people go beyond their moral guidelines and lose themselves to their primal instincts. I hope I didn’t offend anyone, but this is my view on the subject.
I don’t wish to blame anyone but if my son wasn’t playing with a full deck I would not keep guns in my home. Regardless of what the law allows. Commonsense should have prevailed. Everyone who legally keeps guns should excercise a lot more intelligent commonsense. My heart breaks for the lost children and their teachers and my heart goes out to their families for such a tragic “avoidable” tragedy!!!!
Lets write an article about the massacre, toss a few references about hunting here, and a few about automatic rifles here, oh lets bring god in on the subject. Lets discuss a little bit about politics somewhere in the middle, and most importantly lets blame video games, because we all have played grand theft auto and some of us have wondered why their are no children to shoot in the game. Well it was probably intentionly designed without children in the game so that people don’t shoot them.
video games are not your go to solution for all problems. video games are a violence problem only because people who do not know what causes most violence problems use video games as a fall back solution to a violence problem.
Thank you, “Ronald,” for your responses. I suppose you have missed the overarching point of this article (i.e. the acceptability and normalization of violence in various forms in our culture). It would be foolish to blame either one thing or the other for a violent outbreak such as the one that occurred on Friday. That is why one must look at the entire picture. And mostly, one must look within oneself. A little introspection for all of us at times like these would very much be in order.
I agree that mental health services need to be provided, but we run into an issue of forcible incarceration of some mentally ill people, which I think is necessary, but obviously infringes on liberty. Adam Lanza didn’t seem dangerous while he was growing up, but recently had been getting out of control. Perhaps no mental illness system would have stopped that change in him in time.
Also, gun control doesn’t work that well. I quote from Thomas Sowell: “The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms”. (Britain has very strict gun laws). My Dad tells me of a period not that long ago when kids would bring rifles to school for practice in the shooting club. This was probably in more rural areas of the US. The greatest school massacre in the US ever, was done with dynamite. So its kind of complicated.