The Anger Blog, Back to "The Wild, Wild West"

Back to "The Wild, Wild West." The recent shootings in Colorado, in which 12 people were killed and 58 injured, and in Wisconsin, where 6 were killed and others wounded, have prompted shock, disbelief, sadness, grief, fear, and anger, among other emotions. They have also again raised the issue of gun control. It usually takes a mass killing to awaken our populace to renew the debate on gun control even though thousands are killed or critically wounded every month in the United States by firearms, just one or two at a time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why the U.S. leads the world in gun-related deaths year after year.

The influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) lobbyists is undeniable. Most politicians will not discuss the topic because they know it would greatly harm their chances to be re-elected. As soon as the above-mentioned catastrophes occurred, the NRA's propaganda machine went to work, warning the public that the government is going to take away their 2nd Amendment rights to own firearms.

The NRA's old refrain of "Firearms don't kill; people do" is getting tiresome. If we used this line of reasoning for other issues, it would mean we should welcome (or not ban) texting while driving, because, after all, "texting doesn't cause accidents; people do." A civil discussion on this topic seems to be out of the question. However, following 9-11, in which approximately 3,000 people were killed, we all came together to figure out a way to keep this from ever happening again. We even created a new Department of Homeland Security as a direct result of this disaster. A plane crash killing 200 begets inquiries in how to make flying safer. Why is it that thousands of deaths from firearms every year seems to be par for the course?

Many conservatives and NRA supporters feel that the best way to combat this epidemic is to allow every citizen the right to carry concealed weapons. They use the argument that, if perpetrators knew that their intended victims were armed, they would be less likely to instigate a shooting spree. This argument would be taken more seriously if you were dealing only with rational people. For example, the Wisconsin shooter did not hold back from pulling the trigger for fear of losing his own life, since he was apparently planning to commit suicide afterwards. The Colorado gunman appears, according to reports, to have had some psychiatric problems, which begs the question of whether he would have abstained from his shooting spree, even if there had been a good chance of retaliation from armed theater goers.

Opponents of gun control try to counter this argument by saying that, even if concealed weapons would not have prevented the shooting rampage, gun carriers might at least have reduced the carnage by shooting the gunman before he completed his mission. I could agree with this "logic" if I were of the 'cowboy' mentality, believing that everyone carrying a concealed weapon could quick-draw and shoot a silver dollar out of the air. A more likely scenario is one that includes shooting innocent bystanders who, in a panic, would likely be running into your line of fire or, heaven forbid!, your aim being 'a little off' and your accidental shooting of the wrong person.

Most Americans, including our lawmakers, believe in our Second Amendment rights. They are not going to ban ownership of handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc. from any law-abiding citizen who is deemed mentally stable. It really angers me that a common sense dialogue cannot take place because of the NRA and its lobbyists striking fear in the hearts of our populace regarding the trampling of their 2nd Amendment rights. And yes, a part of this discussion should be the need for accessible, affordable mental health resources for all.

Related reading on this subject: Psychological adjustment after mass trauma.