Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Thoughts on Sandy Hook

It goes without saying, given the outpouring of grief since Friday, that the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary is unfathomable. I think that it is horrible for any reasonable person to ponder, but it especially hits home if you are a parent. You can’t help it, but one of the first things that came to mind was an image of my own daughter, with a mix of terror and incomprehension on her face, facing the barrel of a semi-automatic assault weapon that only has a place on the battlefield or with a SWAT unit. The only solace, if this is any, is that with that firepower it is quick. We can discuss mental illness and these shooters all day long (and better intervention protocols for potential shooters who show signs of mental deterioration is a must), but I think it does come down to, as Springsteen sang in “Nebraska,” “I guess that there’s just a meanness in this world.” We can dress it up in psychological explanations if we want, but here is where religious people have a better grasp than others. Evil simply exists. But should we be arming evil with assault weapons?

As an educator myself, I was particularly struck by the heroism of the staff of Sandy Hook. I often get irritated when the word “hero” is overused in our society. Often people get labeled “hero” when they are doing what they are supposed (or being paid) to do. But these heroic women went above and beyond. The principal and school psychologist who confronted the shooter in the hallway armed with nothing but the determination to protect their kids. Teacher Janet Vollmer, who after barricading her classroom door, had the presence of mind to herd her students to the back of the room behind bookcases and keep them calm by reading them stories as gunfire echoed outside. The other teacher (I forget her name), who similarly hid her kids in a closet and kept them quiet by constantly reassuring them and making close eye contact, because as she said in an interview, “I wanted the last thing that they saw to be me instead of the gun.” Many other teachers who, risking their own lives, went into the halls to grab as many students as possible and get them to safety. Special note must be taken of 27 year old teacher Victoria Soto, who hid her 1st grade students in closets and cabinets, and when he entered her room she tried to tell the gunman that her kids were in the gym, and then threw herself into a barrage of bullets when he opened fire on the huddled children in the closet. Teacher Anne Murphy made a similar sacrifice, positioning herself between her students and the bullets that took her life. Soto and Murphy saved lives with quick thinking, tried to save more, and gave theirs protecting them.

I sit in a sometimes awkward position of being an educator and a (moderate) conservative. I say this because there has been a war of words against educators (and public sector workers in general) from the Right. It is particularly vicious on talk radio. (And unlike many critics of talk radio, I actually do listen regularly). Honestly, I agree with some of the complaints. I proudly live in a right to work state and do not belong to a union because I disagree with some of their politics and how they protect the bad teachers along with the good. But words from the Right go beyond just disagreeing with policy, as they often question our basic competence (without understanding, or willfully ignoring, all of the issues involved in our troubled school system, many of them not teacher-related), integrity and dedication as a profession. The next time Limbaugh or Gallagher want to take verbal shots at teachers, it would do them some good to remember Victoria Soto.

Another thing, it is a myth that teachers are all, or mostly, on the Left. I can tell you from personal experience from working in two large high schools, the political leanings of my colleagues are really split down the middle. I have just as many conservative colleagues as I do liberal ones. Granted, I do live in Texas. Also contrary to popular belief, most of my colleagues are very professional about not allowing their personal political beliefs into the classroom. This whole indoctrination complaint from the Right…I just don’t see it. At least where I teach. I pride myself that even though I teach AP U.S. History and we are constantly discussing and debating political and historical issues, my students do not have any idea what my personal beliefs are. I do what an educator should do, and that is play devil’s advocate to get them to think and defend their positions, whatever those may be. In fact, it is a running joke with my students throughout the year as they try and figure out which way I lean or vote. I like that they cannot figure it out, because I teach them to think critically about both sides of the spectrum. Even at the university level, where it is supposedly worse, I had some notable conservative professors. Having graduated from the University of Texas law school, don’t tell me they are only bastions of liberal thought when you have Lino Graglia teaching law classes.

Guns, guns, guns. The 2nd Amendment is only 27 words long (the number of victims in the massacre, by the way, if you include the shooter’s mother whom he shot at home that morning). As a history teacher and student, I do appreciate the importance of the amendment. It is no coincidence that it is listed second only to the most basic freedoms of speech and religion. We won our independence from Britain because we had an armed citizenry, since there was no real professional army. Quite simply, we would not have become independent when we did but for guns owned by lots of people. From the revolutionary beginning on, the second amendment has been sincerely viewed by many reasonable people as one of the most crucial protections against tyranny, the argument being that an armed citizenry keeps the government in check. These beliefs run deep in our history, all the way back. There is some credence to that argument. But…

I can no longer see how we can reasonably allow semi-automatic weapons such as the Bushmaster used by this shooter to be purchased by regular citizens without a real need for them. I think that we can start the conversation at these semi-automatic military grade assault weapons and the rapid load magazines (such as the 100 round magazine the Aurora shooter used, and that thank God eventually jammed). I sympathize with the argument that armed citizens can be the first line of defense against these shooters (in fact, here in my city, the other day someone opened fire in a parking lot with a handgun and an off duty police officer who happened to be there shot and wounded the gunman, who did not hit anybody). I read one conservative commentator claim that it would have been better if the principal of Sandy Hook had been trained with weapons and had a weapon in her office. Maybe so. Things would also have been different if the shooter didn’t have a semi-automatic weapon at his disposal (and really, there is very little “semi” about it when you can fire several rounds per second). A well placed shot to the head from the principal with a handgun would have been as effective as if she had emerged from her office armed like Rambo.

My point here is that I am not for complete gun bans. I am a gun owner myself. And there are simply too many guns already in circulation to put that cat back into the bag. Also, there is some merit in allowing concealed handguns. Or perhaps allowing a few people on the campus of a school, after extensive training, to have a handgun in a secure location. Much like how they allow pilots to have guns in the cockpit now. That would have helped on 9/11 against terrorists wielding boxcutters. I feel better knowing that on my very large high school campus, we have two armed police officers there most of the time. Before Friday, nobody thought that might also be necessary at elementary schools.

ABOVE: The Bushmaster semi-automatic model that was used at Sandy Hook. Should most any American citizen be able to buy this?

After Clinton signed the assault weapons ban in the 90’s (and which expired in 2004), over several years, the number of those weapons in circulation did start to decline. So we should reasonably start there. Assault weapons and high-volume magazines simply are not necessary, and these attacks are increasing in both frequency and in ferocity. One of the common denominators is the availability and ease of purchase of these assault weapons and high volume ammo magazines. Hunters do not need assault weapons to kill deer, and there is no other reasonable explanation to own them. In most of the recent mass shootings, the weapons and ammunition were purchased legally (often over the internet). In the memory of Charlotte, Daniel, Olivia, Josephine, Ana, Dylan, Madeline, Catherine, Chase, Jesse, James, Grace, Emilie, Jack, Noah, Caroline, Jessica, Avielle, Benjamin, Allison, Ms. Soto, Ms. Sherlach, Ms. Rousseau, Ms. Murphy, Ms. Hochsprung, Ms. Davino ,and also Ms. Lanza, we can at least start there.

14 comments:

JMW said...

This was lovely. Your recounting the acts of the teachers made me, not for the first time the past few days, cry.

As you know, I consider myself a political moderate. And I'm especially glad to know a moderate conservative like yourself after I've been (almost literally) sickened by what some of the friends of friends have posted on social media sites recently. Not because of where they eventually land argumentatively, but because of a general tone deafness and immediate defensiveness that comes across, in the days after this event, as disturbing. To me, anyway.

In short, thanks.

Le Chat said...

Couldn't agree with your post more. I'm shocked by some of the pro-gun nuts (ie, acquaintances on Facebook) who just don't get it. Who needs a high-capacity clip??? No one. Keep your revolvers and your shotguns. Ban the weapons that clearly belong to police forces and military units.

I only hope that this event was jarring enough to finally stimulate action on gun legislation in Washington. Let something positive come out of this tragedy.

ANCIANT said...

Well said, Dez, one of your best posts. Totally agree on all counts. Also worth looking at bans on buying bullets, which are, essentially, unregulated. Interesting ideas floating around now about how bullets, if banned, would ultimately dry up and go away (they get used up) as opposed to guns which circulate in such large numbers already that turning off the spigot now may not matter.

Great post, though.

Dezmond said...

Thanks for the compliments. I worked a bit on this one. JMW and Le Chat, your comments explain one of several reasons why I have not visited Facebook in about four months (and have never visited Twitter). Waste of time and most people are not that interesting day to day. Between the comments that you describe (and an equal amount from the other side of the spectrum on many issues) and people telling me what they had for lunch or quoting self-help books...I usually leave angry.

ANCIANT, I agree on the bullets. good point. Did you know that bullets also have expiration dates on them, like milk? Which reminds me. I need to go get me some new ones, since the ones I have expired about a decade ago.

Dezmond said...

A friend of mine was talking to a cop friend of his who said that sales of semi-automatic weapons shot up within the last week so much that one of the companies can't even keep them in stock.

Anonymous said...

To clarify, the weapons supplier for this particular LE department suspended all orders for AR15 rifles and magazines due to lack of availability. Other semi-automatic weapons remain readily available.

Most LE departments don't provide every patrolman with a rifle, so subject to department regulations, many officers purchase a personal "patrol rifle" to carry in their vehicle, and the AR15 platform is very popular.

Demand for the AR15 has been high since Obama was first elected, but the last week can only be described as panic buying. They are virtually impossible to find . . . without paying a ridiculous premium. Magazines for other calibers are also difficult to locate, and in some places, ammunition is also in short supply.

The Ignorant Masses

Anonymous said...

RayTM,

What is your definition of "high capacity magazines," and does said definition vary by caliber?

As I mentioned privately, I think this is your best post ever. We obviously disagree about the importance of the 2nd Amendment, and I have some issues with your description of the Bushmaster, but otherwise, it was a very touching and well-written entry, and I respect you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

The Ignorant Masses

Dezmond said...

Thanks, Ignorant. Where do we disagree on the 2nd Amendment? What are your thoughts?

Dezmond said...

Oh, to answer your question. I honestly don't know enough about guns to give a precise definition or to give you a cut off point. I just know that what this guy (and the guy in Aurora) had is way too much and is not necessary. You need to balance certain freedoms (and their necessities) vs. the danger to others. As Le Chat said, nobody is going after your handguns or hunting rifles. If you can give some clarification on types of weapons and where that line might be...

dre said...

Excellent post. I wholeheartedly agree.

Anonymous said...

I think your description of the 2nd Amendment is excellent. The willingness to surrender said rights for the perception of safety is where we disagree.

I asked about high capacity magazines, b/c the term is used repeatedly by the media and those in support of a gun ban, but after 30+ years of gun ownership, I honestly have no idea what it means. I tried to look it up, but all I could find was "a magazine which holds more rounds than normal." A standard AR15 magazine holds 30 rounds. The magazine for a standard 9mm handgun holds between 15 and 19 rounds. According to Mayor Bloomberg last night of Nightline, anything more than 3 rounds is unnecessary. Of course, he didn't know the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic rifle, so he really doesn't even know what he's trying to ban. Unfortunately, his definition would include ALL semi-automatic handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns. It would actually include revolvers too, but he was rambling so incoherently that I couldn't tell if his thoughts were limited to semi-automatic weapons. "Normal" is going to vary by caliber due to the size of the round. I just think it is important to define the terms involved before taking a position.

Before I get to my 2 serious questions, I have a devil's advocate query for you: are you also proposing a ban on swimming pools? Swimming pools are also "unnecessary," and accidental drownings kill more children than gun-related homicides each year. Clearly, the danger to others outweighs the necessity, and swimming pools aren't even protected by the Bill of Rights.

Back to my more serious questions: aside from the size of the magazine, what aspect of the Bushmaster is so offensive as to make it worthy of a ban? Does it cycle rounds and fire faster than other semi-automatic weapons? No. The handguns and hunting rifles that you are willing to protect can fire just as rapidly. Is it more powerful than other semi-automatic hunting rifles? No. In fact, some areas restrict the use of the .223 round for hunting due to its ineffectiveness against large game. Is it more lethal than other semi-automatic hunting rifles? No. Cosmetically, an AR15 like the Bushmaster looks like a military assault rifle, but it is not military grade as you suggested above, and it is not an assault rifle. Therefore, those opposed to said weapons coined the intentionally misleading term "assault weapon" to conjure up images of a fully-automatic military assault rifle. If you review the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, all of the features which define weapons such as the AR15 as "assault weapons" are strictly cosmetic . . . with the exception of the grenade launcher, but those are illegal anyway. At least, I assume they are. I hope. Anyway, none of the features which classify an AR15 as an "assault weapon" make it any more lethal than a semi-automatic hunting rifle, so why are you supporting a ban on one and not the other?

Finally, and I didn't mean to hijack your blog with this rant, but how would you propose to enforce a ban on the AR15 or high capacity magazines? If the ban has a grandfather clause, you've accomplished nothing. In the last week alone, sales of both have exceeded all-time levels. If you are suggesting confiscation, and I pray you are not, then you're going to unleash absolute mayhem.

As you probably suspect, I am opposed to an outright ban, but I think there's room for compromise on the magazines. I'd also support additional competency requirements, gun safety training, restrictions on gun shows, etc., but I think a ban is a fool's errand.

IM

Dezmond said...

Thank you for the explanation on magazines and guns. You are right. we should be precise in our language and understand what needs to be banned. But at the same time, we can be sidetracked by a discussion of semantics. It is like that famous quote from some Supreme Court justice regarding the definition of pornography, "I know it when I see it." In other words, yes we absolutely need to figure out exactly what type of weapons we are talking about. I can say that we don't need to have so readily available the type of weapons used at Sandy Hook or Aurora. Whatever we decide to call them.

Your (somewhat tongue in cheek) swimming pool question is along the lines of the "are you going to ban cars?" question I often hear from gun enthusiasts. You are right, we cannot (and should not) protect people from every single thing that could possibly harm them in every single scenario. But that also does not mean that you should not protect people from any thing in any scenario. You used the right word unwittingly in you own example: "accidental" drownings. Pools (and cars) are rarely used for intentional homicide. Guns are designed for killing. That is their true purpose. The person who created the first swimming pool did not create it to drown someone. The person who designed the first gun, however, was designing a weapon to inflict harm. (Just because we have since come up with some alternative activities like target shooting does not alter the essential purpose of a gun.) As such, it is in a different category from pools and cars (and we also have restrictions on cars too for safety reasons, so use of automobiles is not unfettered either: drivers license, age limits, DWI laws, traffic laws, speed limits, etc.)

The old "guns don't kill people, people do" adage doesn't really hold water. You say that you think and hope grenade launchers are illegal. Why? Wouldn't the same argument apply? If used properly, why are they really dangerous? Grenade launchers don't kill people, people do.

You make an excellent point regarding enforcement. There is no real way to go round them up. And there are already so many out there in circulation. ANCIANT hit the key, and that is bullets. Perhaps the target needs to be the availability of the types of magazines and bullets themselves. Those get used, and from what I understand, even "expire." Is an expired bullet unusable? What happens to it? Your other suggestions also make sense (stricter buying regulations, closing the gun show loopholes, etc.)

I don't have all the answers, obviously. Notice that I am also in support, generally and it needs to be fleshed out, of the idea of having some guns and trained individuals on school campuses, if not every school district cannot afford to have police officers on each campus. Imagine the cost for cops on every campus, with school budgets already squeezed to the maximum.

Dezmond said...

Should be "can afford" above. Also, please know that I am not someone who hates all guns and thinks gun owners are evil or strange. I own a gun myself in my home for protection of my family and would use it without hesitation if the situation called for it. It is actually a very pretty weapon, a .38 revolver with silver and gold on it. My grandfather used to own a gorcery store in Houston, and this was the gun that he kept under the counter in the event of a robbery or other situation. So there's some family history with it too. I can appreciate gun lovers and their passion for weapons. BUT, something has got to change and it needs to be substantial.

Anonymous said...

RayTM,
I apologize for abandoning our discussion, but I'm absolutely buried at work. Seems like a lot of people are trying to unload commercial property before the end of the year.
Anyway, I've heard that we should get to see the first version of the new and improved assault weapons ban next week. I really do expect this to be an over-reaching gun grab of epic proportions, but I guess I'll reserve my gun-nut rant until after I read the bill.
IM