Howard Chandler Christy Depicts The Founders Signing The U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. "Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States" (1940)

Friday, December 28, 2012

Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)

Americans are catching up to the state of secular reasoning Europeans reached long ago. Whenever horrid massacres are perpetrated in public places such as schools and universities the blame is given to things that do not quite satisfy a well-rounded explanation of the atrocity.

Some blame the weapons used in the crime, as a means of tightening the laws regulating their availability and distribution. Everyone agrees there must be something horribly wrong with the killer himself (a female counterpart does not come to mind) but can not quite figure out the source of what drives him to commit mass murder. 

Mental illness, personality disorder, a troubled family history, are the usual lines of inquiry, yet none satisfy. These explanations run aground of the reality that there are tens of thousands of people, with the same problems, who never commit a violent crime. The real explanation for Adam Lanza is an older one - familiar to all - but ignored by many because it is out of fashion with the secularization of our culture.

Adam Lanza suffered from Asperger syndrome. This may explain some of his social difficulties, but the deliberate, methodical, and cold-blooded nature of his killing spree is something outside the realm of Asperger's. Children with Asperger's show a lack of empathy, a barrier to making healthy friendships and an asset to a killing machine, yet murderous violence is not a hallmark of Asperger's. Often, a disorder of the Schizophrenic type is also present in violent criminals with Asperger's. Perhaps Adam Lanza was an undiagnosed Schizophrenic; there are reports that his mother feared for her safety and planned on having him committed. We'll never know for sure. 

Despite its link with violent crime, does anyone feel satisfied that Schizophrenia, with its symptoms of hallucinations and paranoia, explains the planned, methodical, and overwhelmingly successful campaign of Adam Lanza's murder of his mother, destruction of his hard drive to conceal information, his drive to Sandy Hook Elementary with enough ammunition to murder as many children and adults as came into his view until the arrival of law enforcement provided convenient timing for his suicide and escape from justice? It would be a stretch for Schizophrenia to fit this bill.

Was Adolf Hitler a Schizophrenic? Was Joseph Stalin a Schizophrenic? No one who met them thought so. On the contrary, both were reported to be fully in command of their faculties. Both were unbothered by the knowledge that millions of people died as a result of their conduct. Thus we have come to the older, more satisfying (and out of fashion) explanation of what drove Adam Lanza to commit mass murder: evil.

What caused the evil? Did violent video games make Adam Lanza evil? Was there a supernatural force emanating from the semi-automatic firearms? Was he corrupted by the demonic firearms? It is doubtful. And more people in world history have been murdered by sane people than by insane people. What does it take for a man to shoot his own mother in the face? If you can not imagine what it takes, it is a good thing you can not. Adam Lanza knew what it took because he did it. His mother's body was found with four gunshot wounds in her head. All his dead victims had multiple gunshot wounds. One, a six year old boy at Sandy Hook Elementary, had eleven.

It is high time our society has a conversation about evil and that we start teaching our children about evil. Evil will do its work with or without guns. On the same day Adam Lanza butchered his mother and shot-up a few dozen at Sandy Hook, another such atrocity was committed at a Chinese elementary school by a knife-wielding perpetrator (guns are illegal in China) named Min Yingjun. Twenty-two children were hospitalized with knife wounds. Amazingly, none died. Even so, CBS news reported:

The attack marks the latest in a series of violent assaults at elementary schools in China. In 2010, a total of 18 children were killed in four separate attacks. On March 23 of that year, Zheng Minsheng attacked children at an elementary school in Fujian Province, killing eight.
One month later, just a few hours after Zheng Minsheng was executed for his crime, another man, Chen Kanbing wounded 16 students and a teacher in a knife attack at another primary school in Fujian. The following month, on May 12, a man named Wu Huangming killed seven children and two adults with a meat cleaver at a kindergarten in Shaanxi Province. That attack was followed by an August 4 assault by Fang Jiantang, who killed three children and one teacher with a knife at a kindergarten in Shandong Province.
In 2011, a young girl and three adults were killed with an axe at an elementary school in Henan Province by a 30-year-old man named Wang Hongbin, and eight children were hurt in Shanghai after an employee at a child care center attacked them with a box cutter.

See the full article here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57559179/china-school-knife-attack-leaves-23-injured/

China has strict gun control laws and stiffer criminal punishments than western societies have. Are we ready to start talking about evil? If we are, we can teach our children about it. If we teach our children about it, fewer of them may grow up to be Adam Lanza.

Patriot Thought

6 comments:

  1. An interesting and thought-provoking article. I do believe in evil(TED BUNDY and other mass murderers) but I also believe that Adam Lanza had mental issues that weren't being addressed. Also, he had been abandoned by his father whom he hadn't seen in over 2 years and who had a second family which Adam was not a part of. Adam had been assigned a school psychologist but somewhere along the line he dropped through the cracks and didn't get the care he needed that could possibly have prevented this tragedy. We'll never know...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jason, it is so interesting that you brought up the idea of "evil". The question no becomes "what is evil?" How can evil be defined in a pluralistic society? Is morality something decided by vote? And then following that question, how can evil be "treated"? Is getting counseling enough? It's one thing to say that someone needs help . . . who is willing to put in the work? Or is everyone waiting for someone else to take care of the problem.

    And then deeper questions come to mind like, can the amount and kind of violence act like a litmus test on the overall moral "health" of a society?

    Jason, I think you're trying to open a door that very few want to walk through because if we do, we are forced to make choices about things many would like to leave "relative".

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think we should stop offering up drug store psychology and focus on the one common denominator- GUNS. Psychotic people exist in all cultures, nations and religions. Look at the countries in the world with strict gun control laws; such as Japan, Australia, Canada to name a few, and they have far less violence involving guns. Are you blaming secularism? Science? The devil made him do it! Right? This is the twenty first century, not the sixteenth. The Inquisition is long over. When we blame personal and sociatal ills on "Evil", we diminish the role of individual free will and personal responsibility. Simply, Adam Lanza and other mass murderers are mentally ill. They will always be with us, lurking in the shadows. So let's make it impossible for people like him to obtain guns of mass destruction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess you have selective reading comprehension. Your comment completely ignores the portion of Jason's article which speaks of the amount of violence which takes place in china. A nation which "...has strict gun control laws and stiffer criminal punishments than western societies have." Yet China still deals with levels of violence that cannot be explained. Maybe we should make it impossible for any potential psycopath to obtain anything that might be used to commit murder. Guns, knives, baseball bats, rocks, scissors, bare hands...because after all, adressing the reasons people murder is far more troublesome and uncomfortable than simply taking away those implements they might choose to carry them out.

      Delete
  4. Dear Living the Journey, The Adam Lanza case is certainly a lesson many of us want to avoid because it forces choices on us we would rather deem "not our problem." We will always have tragedies so long as there is evil. Evil as such can not be cured through government policy. On the contrary, its work can only be limited through choices made by individuals.

    Dear Anonymous, You mention the cases of Japan, Australia, and Canada having fewer gun-related crimes because of tighter gun control laws. Assuming you are correct(although I'm not sure),statistically, there should be fewer gun-related violent crimes with fewer guns in a population. What I've laid out in my article is that people who want to kill do not need guns in order to do it. China is an excellent case. They have tight gun control laws and severe criminal punishments (Canada is a joke in the criminal punishment area.) Yet, elementary schools get attacked nonetheless. You are right about one thing - I do blame secular reasoning for making it difficult for us to address the problem. If you take good and evil out of your worldview, morally you can not say there is anything wrong with what Adam Lanza did. You may be horrified at what he did, but you can not judge it against any standards, if good and evil are removed as avenues of inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Perhaps, we should not focus so much on the origin of good and evil, but rather on the development of the morally sound individual. Regardless of the origin of our moral intuitions/reasoning, it appears to me to be self- evident that the majority of us hold notions of right and wrong. What could be done to change the consciousness of Americans that appear to exist on the outer fringes? What about the boys involved in the Ohio rape scandal? What as a society can we do to promote values that honor women rather than objectifying them? What can we do for people with problems as serious as this and those of Adam Stanza? Where should we start? Serious character education in schools? It may seem silly to think that such a thing could make a difference regarding such heavy matters. Although, good things often start out small and then grow. A well-tested, properly implemented program may plant the seeds...
    The question then arises about the religious vs. secular nature of such a program. I assert that there is nothing wrong with the secularization of society. This in NO way means that we should not have rational discourse in regards to what we value (what is good vs. evil, if you like.) We should discuss what is happening to our culture as it appears to become increasingly hedonistic. We should talk about the problems that arise from embracing such a reprehensible philosophy. We should remain true to the very First Amendment of the Constitution in all our attempts to remedy the problems of our society. (Recall…..”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....”) Did we not leave England because old Henry, speaking of hedonism, was telling us what to believe in regards to God? We should not forget that. Compelling arguments to live a wholesome, virtuous life can be made without dogma. Treat others how you would like to be treated is found in every major philosophy… ( Could a soft form of universalism work – one that embraces the inevitable shades of gray?) Irrationality is pervasive in our species from the ground level up. How many times a day do people contradict themselves? (Much to my dismay, I am not completely immune to this tendency, although I try very hard to be cognizant of it.) Could it be that a little logical consistency could actually go a long way in promoting human happiness? If it is not a welcome turn of events for the student that makes fun of others at school to become the object of ridicule, then maybe that individual might do well to reflect on his/her own actions. Perhaps, to begin, we should teach logic and promote this type of introspection.

    ReplyDelete

Visitor Comments

The dated links and statements below show interaction between the readers and makers of this blog to further the marketplace of ideas that enrich the education of patriots. Certain opinions made to posts are excerpted and re-posted here to highlight interesting discussions by fellow patriots.

Chris CJuly 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I think it is absurd to draw a moral equivalence between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent. It should be clear that one is far more protective and respectful of individual rights than the other. It's ironic that you attack the American system here, when it obviously takes more into account that someone could be falsely accused. Hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution rather than the defense.

DonaldJuly 28, 2013 at 8:27 AM[writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

It is interesting because the American Justice system goes from a innocent until proven guilty point of view. It definitely is no better in China where it is from a guilty until proven innocent point of view. Both are flawed because both lend themselves to being tainted with corruption as well as the norms of society.

Living the JourneyJuly 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I found it interesting that Donald's perception of how America out to be was originally influenced by American fiction. This reminds me of when I arrived in China the first time expecting to see sword toting warriors running on the roofs of ancient temple like buildings. I was definitely surprised by reality.

Donald
July 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

Long before Zimmerman was pronounced innocent, people in my country were laughing at the thought of a white man (yes he is white Hispanic really) being found guilty of killing a black teenager. That will never happen they say. When things like that happen, it is the stuff of legend and stories and hollywood scripts. Look at some of the greatest literature found out there (to kill a mocking bird for example). It is the stand of the downtrodden black defendant who triumphs over the hard and brutal white man. This in itself is a tragedy as well because of the stereotypical vision people then have of the US as in the case of many of my country people as well as others from other countries in their view of America.

Anonymous
December 28, 2012 12:13 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I do believe in evil but I also believe that Adam Lanza had mental issues that weren't being addressed. Also, he had been abandoned by his father whom he hadn't seen in over 2 years and who had a second family which Adam was not a part of. Adam had been assigned a school psychologist but somewhere along the line he dropped through the cracks and didn't get the care he needed that could possibly have prevented this tragedy. We'll never know...

Living the JourneyDecember 31, 2012 7:16 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

How can evil be defined in a pluralistic society? Is morality something decided by vote? And then following that question, how can evil be "treated"? Jason, I think you're trying to open a door that very few want to walk through because if we do, we are forced to make choices about things many would like to leave "relative".

Anonymous
December 31, 2012 7:36 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I think we should stop offering up drug store psychology and focus on the one common denominator- GUNS. Psychotic people exist in all cultures, nations and religions. Look at the countries in the world with strict gun control laws; such as Japan, Australia, Canada to name a few, and they have far less violence involving guns. Are you blaming secularism? Science? The devil made him do it! Right? Simply, Adam Lanza and other mass murderers are mentally ill. So let's make it impossible for people like him to obtain guns of mass destruction.

Jason Aldous
December 31, 2012 10:56 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

Dear Living the Journey, We will always have tragedies so long as there is evil. Evil as such can not be cured through government policy. On the contrary, its work can only be limited through choices made by individuals.

Dear Anonymous, I do blame secular reasoning for making it difficult for us to address the problem. If you take good and evil out of your worldview, morally you can not say there is anything wrong with what Adam Lanza did. You may be horrified at what he did, but you can not judge it against any standards, if good and evil are removed as avenues of inquiry.

Jason AldousDecember 27, 2012 6:39 PM [writing in response to Wednesday, December 26, 2012: Gun Control Part 3: The Second Amendment (A Legal Analysis)]

Let's see, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Even if the wording implies that the populace must be armed when called up for militia service, it says "the right of the people shall not be infringed." Since the amendment states that bearing arms is a "right" and "not to be infringed" it is an open and shut case for anyone taking an objective reading of it. "Rights" are entitlements. Privileges can be taken away, but not rights. It matters not if this right was given with militia service in mind. Good work, Mr. Emma.


AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 3:46 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

On my part, I think that all guns should definitely be regulated and strictly controlled. Its interesting that almost all Americans point to the 2nd amendment. From my point of view, this 2nd Amendment was written in a time when there was 'trust' among people and their government. Today this trust has been flushed down the drain

AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 5:26 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

In 1959, 60% of the American public favored a ban on handguns. Today, the majority of the American people don't even support a ban on assault rifles. Why? Because since 1959, the argument that tighter gun control would reduce crime has been effectively refuted in the mind of the public. The change in attitude toward gun control is primarily due to fear of crime rather than distrust of government.


GeoDecember 8, 2012 2:11 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 7, 2012, Pearl Harbor: Was It Japan's Fault, or America's? (Conspiracy Theory vs. History)]

FDR campainged on keeping the US out of the war but when he wanted to get into the war he needed an excuse. He may very well have been tempted to withhold information from his top commanders at Pearl Harbor. They certainly suspected he did.

GeoDecember 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM[writing in response to Saturday, December 1, 2012, Voting In A Bad Economy, Recession Myths: De-Constructing Historical Falsification]

Can't argue with your observations, Jason, but even with the limited space no mention of the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs in any discussion of Hoover/Great Depression/FDR is to ignore an elephant in the room.

Chris CDecember 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM[writing in response to Tuesday, November 27, 2012, The Next Great American President: Who We Need To Look For In 2016]

One qualm: I don't think Suez can be regarded as a long-term success for Eisenhower. It bought us no credibility with the developing world and managed to alienate important Allies. As a result, we got no real help from Britain in Vietnam and plenty of hostility from France in the 1960's. France's desire to oppose or sabotage us on key issues has continued to this day.