Last Friday morning, America experienced its seventh mass
killing of 2012. An unspeakable act of
madness resulted in the deaths of 20 elementary schoolchildren, four teachers,
a school psychologist, and the school's principal.
Some of the adults died performing acts of heroism. From early reports, Principal Dawn
Hochsprung died trying to disarm the killer with her bare hands as he forced
his way into her school.
Shortly thereafter, Vicky Soto, a 27-year-old teacher with a
smile that could melt a glacier, was gunned down after hiding her students and
putting her body between the gunman and their hiding place.
We need to remember such acts of heroism. We need to remember Dawn Hochsprung and Vicky
Soto - and other heroes - from this massacre and earlier massacres.
We need to remember them for their love, their courage
and their sacrifice. And we need to
remember their names - for two reasons.
First, we should celebrate their names rather than that of
the killer. We give these mad dogs far too much publicity, which only serves to encourage the next anonymous loser
to seek posthumous infamy by taking an even greater number of innocent
lives.
You won't read the killer's name here. We should all refuse to mention his
name. So should the media. Label him for what he was - a loser, a
madman, a murderer of children. Call him
Herod. But minimize his name, his
picture, his story. Let him be as anonymous
in death as he was in life.
Second, we should celebrate the heroes by way of contrast with
our so-called leaders, who continue to cower at the thought of offending the
NRA and the rest of the "gun lobby".
We should remember those who laid down their lives to protect children -
and compare their conduct with that of elected officials who won't even risk
re-election to do the same thing.
That cowardice must end. So must ours.
Within hours of the news from Sandy Hook Elementary, the
social media entered a cycle we have seen, over and over, for decades.
Passionate voices were raised in favor of doing something
about the easy availability of offensive weapons in a country with its fair
share of mentally-troubled people.
This is always the first response: demands for rational, effective, legal reform
from those who understand American society - and fanciful schemes for the
elimination of all firearms from the clueless.
These cries - both the rational and the fanciful - are quickly
met with a massive counter-strike by indoctrinated defenders of unrestricted
personal weaponization. A flood of bumper-sticker
slogans, questionable facts, and pretzel logic - underscored by a tone of
paranoid rage - is enough to discourage the timid from pursuing the subject.
Then come the peacemakers,
with plaintive calls for suspension of the debate. "This isn't the time," they cry. "Think of the children!" "Think of the families!" "Pray to God for peace!"
And this is what the political class counts on - those good-hearted
souls who find it unseemly to debate public policy when we should be sending
flowers and teddy bears, or flocking to houses of worship to pray to a God who
(if He exists) is clearly in no hurry to protect little kids from bloodthirsty
madmen with military weapons.
Once the "voices of compassion" are raised, the
politicians come out from cover and join in the flood of empty words and
cotton-candy comfort which does little for the bereaved and traumatized - and
absolutely nothing to protect the next bunch of schoolchildren, movie-goers,
shoppers, or worshippers targeted by an angry, unbalanced loser.
And so it goes.
It will go on, endlessly, until ordinary Americans find the
courage of Dawn Hochsprung and Vicky Soto - and demand that our politicians do
the same.
The courage to do what, exactly?
The courage to debate
- openly, honestly, rationally - what steps our society might take to address a
mounting tide of mass murder which amounts to the equivalent of a domestic al-Qaeda.
Many civilized democracies have managed - without violating
the rights of law-abiding citizens - drastically to limit the availability of
assault weapons to madmen and bad men. We should
find out how.
No one remotely familiar with American society could believe
that any elected government would attempt to ban all firearms - or that it
would succeed if it tried.
But rational weapons laws are manifestly necessary, and they
will come only when we are prepared to have a debate - an open, honest, passionate,
sometimes angry debate - about what our laws should be.
It's called democracy. And those who would impose silence - whether in defense of guns or in the name of peace - are, for all
their pretensions, the enemies of democracy.
So, where do we start?
We can start by realizing that flowers and teddy-bears,
compassion and prayers, are not the answer.
If there is a God, this is apparently one of those problems He expects
us to solve for ourselves.
The place to begin is by talking about it- and demanding
that our politicians talk about it.
For me, the first step has been writing this piece. In eight years of writing a weekly opinion
column - in which I have taken many unpopular stands - I have steered clear of
the weapons issue.
I was afraid of it.
No more.
The chief weapon of the gun lobby is intimidation. The appropriate response is
counter-intimidation.
So from now on, no progressive or liberal candidate who
refuses to discuss guns in an honest, courageous manner will get my vote.
Even if that means victory for someone whose position I find loathsome.
Even if that means victory for someone whose position I find loathsome.
If enough rational, well-intentioned Americans took that
stand, our politicians might begin to find their courage.
And we should demand courage of our leaders. We should help them find it.
After all, Dawn Hochsprung and Vicky Soto found theirs.
2 comments:
Mr. Gray,
I agree with you in that politicians who are saying "now is not the time to discuss firearm policy" are cowards. Now is the time for every legislator who said any version of that phrase to resign their positions, as they exhibit poor leadership when their ass is on the line.
I also must agree that guns do not belong in the hands of mentally unstable people. Past that I do not have a firm position on what to do, unlike so many zealots on both sides of this debate. I heard an interesting contention on NPR yesterday. They consulted a wide range of so-called "experts", who predictably had a full spectrum of contradicting statistics. One of them, on the pro-gun side, said that no one would willingly put up a "weapon-free zone" sign to designate their home as such, yet for some reason they are on some of our public places most vulnerable to this kind of unbelievable violence.
The only details on which I'm very firm are that I don't support removing a significant portion of firearms from the public at large. I think we can all agree that the easiest guns to take would naturally be those easiest bought, by law-abiding citizens. I am somewhat partial to the idea that the legal owner of any gun should be the only one who can ever fire it or even access it for any reason. Because you know my family I'm sure you understand this is a bit of a concession for me to make.
I am frightened by historical examples of mass public firearm confiscation, where in almost in every case they followed censorship of real and important information about the governments' operations and intentions, and in just as many cases were followed by mass murder by such governments. This is a bit different (I think), but principles are principles.
In this debate I am actually ears open to anything that makes sense. So far I have heard very few logical arguments from either side, but certainly have heard more than enough emotional arguments. I will wait to hear proposals from people who seem to really understand both sides from a logical perspective. For as I see it, if one does not see enough merit in an opposing opinion to be nearly persuaded by it, one's grasp of the other position is not complete.
Rick,
I think you nailed it. Lots of people talk about our lack of resolve around this issue, and some call it courage. The thing is, though, they are talking in large conceptual terms, while I think you mean something much harder to admit: physical courage. At the root of this problem is a fear that is not about being a political outcast, but actual fear of bodily harm. Politicians might fear the NRA running pro-gun folks against him, but what lurks closer to the heart of the problem is more the kind of fear that movies like HIGH NOON or BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK are about – fear of the guys with guns. The NRA works this fear in many ways, some of them not so subtle. What makes your piece important is that you basically cop to that fear, and until the guys with the guns know that we're all going to stick our necks out they'll be swaggering about our having to pry their guns from their cold dead hands.
Post a Comment