After Sandy Hook...

                     Guess who has a $500 million (>6%) stake in the company that produced the Bushmaster rifle used in last week’s tragedy? Ironically, the California State Teacher’s Retirement System, a pension fund for Cal public school teachers.

One:

                     Estragon: “We lost our rights?”                                

                     Vladimir  : “We got rid of them.”

                     (Beckett, Waiting for Godot)

“Guns are only the tools,” they said, in the comments section of major newspapers online. “Guns are not responsible for what people do with them.”

                     Which, I suppose, is why they are sold to all and sundry who can produce an age certificate (>18 years) and the cash.

                     According to the Gallup Poll, 47% of Americans think handguns are the best security for their homes. I once read that it is more dangerous to own a gun, than not. More civilian gun owners end up hurting themselves than they do intruders.

                     Shooting is said to relax and develop one’s single-minded focus. I have nothing against it, if the situation so demands. In India, gentleman farmers often stock guns to guard against dacoits North India. Some use guns to control animal populations, within the state laws. In the U.S., some of our friends hunt to feed their families in Colorado and Wisconsin. So I understand where this statement is coming from, and why. But does this mean everyone has a right to a gun? So now, an 18 year old needs a gun to feel like a man? What does that say about us as parents?

                     As for gun restrictions, psychological tests can always be fudged – so out goes one way of limiting access. How about disarming the larger public altogether?

                     Tougher gun laws after a 1996 massacre brought down homicides in Australia. Australians don’t see home protection as a “justifiable need” to own a gun. In the U.K., 35 people are killed by guns every year. In the U.S., this number is 12,000. The US could go with tougher background checks, permits, high annual license fees, waiting periods. Why not adopt an ethically sound system that prioritizes public safety with LESS guns, not more?

                     In a country where one is supposed to surrender without protest to a police officer in any kind of encounter, why arm civilians to question that authority? Maybe the assumption here is that everyone is of sound mind and judgment, and that crimes of passion do not exist in the U.S.A.

                    The latest we hear of is the need to equip each school with one armed police officer. There could be other avenues for weapons manufacturers to grow their pie...? Just saying...how about a long-term diversification strategy...security systems…safe/locker box manufacturing…self-defense training schools…lesser profits - sure - but also long-term pie growth. You don't want to arm everyone so that your market totals itself through extreme reactions - either through violence or against violence. In any case, another poll showed a change in attitude almost immediately - 52% of Americans (yep, the ones who earlier defended handgun home protection) now want tougher gun laws.

                     How about corporate social responsibility by investing in greater mental health treatment access for those Americans that need it, at a lower cost (given the current lower reimbursements)? Don’t we owe it to the scores of soldiers coming home, who’ve fought using these very weapons?

                    What would happen to the fixed assets of weapons manufacturers upon diversification? How about a government incentive to destroy captured weapons, and to help transition companies into other industries? It’s not as though the world does not need arms protection, but how about answering this need without creating a mass hysteria leading to uncontrollable gun consumption, while helping veterans transition back to civilian life? Guy Kawasaki’s map of mass shootings around the world says it all:

Two:

Here is another stock comment – “I’ve always played violent video games and I’ve NEVER felt the need to shoot anyone down!!”

                    This comment and a slew of similar ones were made after numerous news articles appeared, linking emotional sterility and increased aggression as the effects of long-term exposure to violence/pornography in videos/games, regardless of age and gender (proven by the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the International Society for Research and Aggression).

                    No, we're not talking about premises defended by selective evidence. Remember Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and what they had to say about violence and the media? On another note, here's what Susan Sontag says about the objectification in media - "To suffer is one thing; another thing is living with the photographed images of suffering, which does not necessarily strengthen conscience and the ability to be compassionate. It can also corrupt them. Once one has seen such images, one has started down the road of seeing more - and more. Images transfix. Images anesthetize."

                     So much is said about PTSD, the effects from the exposure to violence, the role of domestic dysfunction…Sure, maybe not every gamer would feel the need to shoot anyone down, but perhaps Adam Lanza faced a set of peculiar emotional challenges that sparked off his mental imbalance. Not all of us undergo the same kind of stress, and not all of us react to the same kind of stress in the same way. Adam’s brother Ryan experienced similar trauma upon the break-up of his family – yet he coped better.

“He was a nice kid…he was just very withdrawn and quiet.”

                     I’m not sure if Adam’s parents divorced because of the stress of caring for a mentally imbalanced child, or if Adam buckled due to emotional stress and the subsequent absence of his secondary father figure, his older brother Ryan.

                     I’m not an expert in psychology. Still, from my observations and conclusions of life in general, I can't help thinking that the pressures of the social network in the U.S. that is marked by the pressure to conform certainly contributes towards the isolation of the more timid, insecure, and quiet members of society. Not every brooding individual blossoms into a world-famous artist. So what happens to kids like Adam Lanza who don’t redeem themselves with a talent (remember how Michael J. Fox is suddenly the popular guy when he has a 'cool' identity, in 'Teen Wolf')? 

                     Sometimes, all that is needed is a listening ear, some kindness and empathy. If not for Adam, then at least for his mother, who was clearly worn out by the demands of caring for a mentally ill child as a divorcee, however well she held it together. 

                     The Sandy Hook families will be spending Christmas without their loved ones, and the surviving children might just forever be paranoid about safety, and terrified of loud noises or chaos (I pray they do not succumb to some nervous or mental disorder). We will be failing them all and ourselves if no action is taken to change the gun laws, regardless of the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms).

                     A glimmer of hope that we are moving in the right direction: real estate billionaire Mort Zuckerman pledged $200 million towards mental health research at Columbia University. If more such donations are made, perhaps we can move towards rebuilding a robust mental healthcare system – better than the one that was disbanded in the 1980s.

                     As for those who scoff at the mentally ill – hey, don’t be so sure about yourselves. We are all a little crazy, and we all need a little help.