The media screeches predictably — even when people behave in
ways that aren’t predictable. News outlets and commentators seek to
sort through the chaos and frame things in order to explain the
unexplainable. Whether its Rupert Murdoch
chiding politicians for lacking the courage to ban automatic
weapons, or Mike Huckabee positing that the systematic removal of
God has perpetuated crimes like the killing of 26 people in Sandy
Hook elementary school last Friday, opinions abound and emotions
run the gamut.
Every time we see a heinous, inexplicable evil such as this,
there are as many reactions as there are questions: We should act;
we shouldn’t act. We should grieve; we should forgive. While some
say we should only mourn; others, like CNN’s Roland Martin
say, “Now is the time to talk guns, mental illness.”
To borrow from the bard, every person in time plays different
parts. Politicians should offer genuine condolences, as President
Obama clearly did, when he choked back tears reading his address to
the country. But they should also act: This is their job, to
represent the people and their concerns in Congress. It doesn’t
mean they should, within 24 hours propose radical legislation —
like Senator Dianne Feinstein’s
pending assault weapons ban — but they should reason and
research, weigh and determine whether policy changes can and should
be made.
Others should grieve and remember, honor and celebrate. No child
should have to squeeze his eyes shut, blindly hold the hand of his
classmate, and amble outside toward safety, unsure of why he must
do so and if he will even reach it? No 27-year-old teacher should
have to shield her students from a crazed gunman, lying to him
about their whereabouts, to save their lives while losing hers.
But still as those stories emerge, in all their nauseating
reality, two things remain certain: Evil permeates society and
attempts to crush even the most indefensible among us. But also
goodness exists, heroism, selflessness, even in the midst of the
cruelty and in spite — and because — of it.
As John Piper, a pastor at Bethlehem Baptist, a church I used to
attend, tweeted Saturday: “In times of suffering, silence is
golden, and speaking is golden. It’s all a matter of truth and
timing and tone.” In other words, “There is a time for everything,
and a season for activity under the heavens….a time to weep and a
time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance. (Ecclesiastes
3:1, 4)”
So to the Rupert Murdochs and Mike Huckabees: Your truth,
timing, and tone are questionable — indefensible and ridiculous
even. But still, what to make of 26 dead, particularly those who
were too young to understand what was happening, much less protect
themselves?
As the mother of a kindergartner, “what if” in all its variances
and possibilities have swirled in my mind, just as they have in the
mind of every parent of an elementary-age child nationwide by now.
I cannot fathom how the parents are feeling. While I am busy
wrapping Christmas gifts for my children, moms and dads in
Connecticut are ordering caskets half the size of their bodies: How
is this fair? How can we prevent this?
Despite the urge to wave the de facto “we need more gun
control” banner typical of post-massacre reactions, pause and
consider: Though guns were the vehicle for this atrocity, the
gunman attempted — and was unable — to receive a license. He
stole guns that belonged to his mother and for which he had no
license, to commit a crime that is illegal on a premises which bans
weapons. (In essence, the crime occurred smack dab in media
res gun control.) Reports are also emerging that he showed
signs of mental illness. It’s doubtful that tighter gun laws would
prevent someone deranged enough to plan such an act or, if
semi-automatic weapons were banned, would have deterred him
altogether because his weapon of choice is illegal. The majority,
if not all, of these types of shootings in the last several years
have occurred where guns are banned: If the gunman knew an armed
security personnel awaited his arrival, perhaps he would have
chosen a different path, or at least a different target?
Charles Krauthammer, conservative columnist with a M.D. in
psychiatry,
said he would first examine this shooting via the “psychology
of the killer.” How exactly do we go about diagnosing and treating
a person who is not only mentally ill while essentially pre-empting
a crime he hasn’t yet committed? The answers are as difficult and
elusive as the questions, but well worth an examination.
In the months ahead we as a nation can wade through these
difficult questions, but let’s also cherish the indefensible among
us (young and old) and praise the acts of heroism.
Read the names of the little ones, look at the faces of the
school staff — honor them with grief, an outpouring of love for
their families, and rational acts towards lasting change that will
prepare for and possibly prevent tragedies like this.
