Guest Opinion: Sandy Hook and Gun Control. Can Lawmakers Stop the Killings?

By Dr. Frederick Liewehr
12/19/2012
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

The killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School were only a symptom

If we truly want to prevent further school shootings in this nation, we need to stop fooling ourselves with utopian "feel good" solutions like passing some more anti-gun legislation. We need to look inward and see that, as Pogo famously said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

RICHMOND, VA (Catholic Online) - The scenario is all too familiar. The nation is aghast over a psychopathic 20-year old who entered a school and systematically killed some 28 people, including himself. The usual group of anti-gun advocates followed the admonition of one of their leaders, Rahm Emmanuel, not to "waste a crisis" and were calling for stricter gun control laws before the assailant's guns had cooled. A teary eyed President said he felt "overwhelming grief" at the tragedy and promised "meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this". Could this have been a reference to his own anti-gun agenda to which the horror in Connecticut will add considerable fuel?

But let us look for a moment at the underlying logic of the anti-gun position, which is that guns equal killing; if you own a gun, you will go on a rampage and kill innocent people. Estimates vary on the number of guns and gun owners in the United States, but a rough average would be approximately 80 million people in the US own about 250 million guns. So, although one person went on a rampage Friday, another 80 million people did not. The odds, therefore, of a gun owner committing an atrocity like the one in Connecticut are actually rather small.

Gun sales are currently at an all-time high, and the message of the anti-gunners is that with more guns there will be more crime. The facts, however, do not support this basic assumption. In fact, US violent crime rates that soared for 30 years from the early 1960s have decreased markedly since 1993. Last December the FBI reported that murder and other violent crime rates fell again by 6.4% during the first half of 2011 compared with the same period in 2010. It would appear that increased gun ownership does not lead to increased crime, and in fact the reverse may be true.

Still, it is reasonable to try to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, which should be the purpose of gun regulation. Criminals and individuals with mental problems clearly should be denied access to guns. The problem, however, is that criminals, by definition, do not abide by laws. The Connecticut shooter is a clear case in point. He was 20 years old, so legally too young to buy a gun. No problem, he stole the guns from his mother and then murdered her as his first victim. There was no lack of "gun control" laws involved. Connecticut has very stringent gun control laws, but the shooter simply bypassed them by stealing the guns, as criminals do every day. His mother could not report this theft or his activities to the authorities because she was dead. So much for anything that legislation could possibly have accomplished.

The problem with gun control is that it does not address the real problem. As the well-known clich� says, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people". Interestingly, the same day the attack was carried out in Connecticut, a knife-wielding man attacked 22 students and a teacher at a school in central China in another of a series of similar assaults which killed 18 children in 2010. Clearly the problem is not restricted to the use of guns, nor is it restricted to the US.

So what is the problem? Gun control is, like most of the liberal ideology, a fantasy world solution to a real world problem. It is like raising the debt ceiling to solve our problem of deficit spending. If we could only get rid of guns we would have no killing, goes the anti-gun line. Ask the parents of the dead and wounded children in China if this is the case. Quixotic jousting at windmills has not proven to be an effective solution to many problems in the past, and depriving the good people of the US, the vast overwhelming majority of whom use their guns in a responsible way, of their only chance to defend themselves against a crazed attacker like the Connecticut shooter, is not likely to stop the carnage.

At this point, the anti-gun Left wants a "dialogue" about this problem. That dialogue must begin with the recognition of the real cause of the problem - evil, the evil that is associated with and caused by the culture of death that has taken over our nation. Pontificating by politicians who vote for pro-abortion legislation about the "terror" of the Connecticut killings is hypocritical at best. Why is a nation that legally kills over a million of its children annually concerned about another 28 people? How can a President who voted multiple times to continue even the most barbarous and unnecessary type of abortion, partial birth abortion, claim to experience "overwhelming grief" over the carnage in Connecticut and yet be unmoved by that which goes on daily in the Planned Parenthood facilities all over the nation that he funds with our tax dollars?

The killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School were only a symptom of the larger problem that afflicts us today, and afflicts most of the world - a loss of our moral compass due to our abandonment of God. Oh sure, people will ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 99 Comments

KarlVDH
5 months ago
And by the way, son... here's a little more reality for you. I don't care what video games you've aced, how good you are at paintball, or what movies you've seen. The TRUTH is, until the shooting actually starts, you have NO IDEA- NONE- how you're actually going to react. Not a CLUE. I've seen much more arrogant and confrontational people than you cave, and far more docile and even meek people become heroes than you can imagine. Better get that part straight before you presume to lecture a veteran, kid: you don't know. Anything. You have no idea what it's like, and you have no idea- though you THINK you do- how you'll behave. Learn to communicate with some respect... if not for your elders, than for your betters.
KarlVDH
5 months ago
Jason? My man... reality check time, kid. I'm a doisabled veteran, wounded in combat. Tell me more about how you're gonna serve the country, and know all about gun violence. I'm ready to be judged now.
Jason M
5 months ago
Really? The gun is and was used to kill, so as long as i have a gun? I will have the right to protect myself. The Church TODAY- Not in the bible- Allows us to be in the armed forces which means that they are excusing people from killing. That allows for gun use. That allows for me, Since i'm willing, to join the military, which i will do. I will be one of the thousands that keep your sorry little beanbags safe at home typing hate comments while playing XBox in your mother's basemnet with no job living off of obama.
KarlVDH
5 months ago
The Bible is quite clear as to what God expects us to use as "the weapons of our warfare." He discusses "The breastplate of righteousness... the helmet of salvation... the sword of the Spirit, etc.
In fact, the only "weapons" the scriptures authorize the believer to carry- despite the efforts of some to equate the average citizen with the soldier or policeman, or to justify their own deadly weapon by misuse of Jesus comment about a sword... no... the ONLY weapons we're authorized by scrioture are spiritual ones. Nowhere does it mention the assault rifle of personal vengeance, or the nine millimeter handgun of saving your own butt, or the shotgun of defending personal beliongings that Jesus told us wwe should always be ready to part with anyway.
No. There is no justification for the idea of a gun for "defense." Not in the Bible, not in our faith, not among a people who claim so stridently to be "pro life" with regard to the behavior of others. Simply, NO.
Jason M
5 months ago
Honestly, we're all at least one form of a christian sect or another. So seriously, Jerry, Sara,
LAY OFF and quit spammin the comments about taxes. Because I just looked at it and said, what a waste of time. And Jerry? The first use of the gun? IT WAS TO KILL. Not to shoot in the air like a terrorist. TO KILL! that means YOU are wrong.
Rob
5 months ago
This issue, like so many others, devloves into a political side show....it will pass and we can continue to consume weapons of warfare to our heart's content.
SaraPalen
5 months ago
yes, the Church teaches against violence, war (although they teach about just war), death penalty, with rare exceptions, and prays for peace.REAL PEACE. all good.

But force to stop an aggressor is also teaching, explained in the Summa Theologica and the catechism. Not all people who are stopped with a gun are killed, as we still do not have freedom to just plug people with holes just to plug people with holes. Some are stopped from the agression just by knowing it is there.

If the Church teaches as Karl is implying, then the Pope would have no security carrying semiauto weapons, or swords for that matter. Those guys are Catholic guarding him, right? and they do have guns.We assume they are not prolife? Let's be real. Then, the Pope would not be pro life? Hey America, the Pope is only pro birth!
(how many guns does the President have in his house, by the way. He's not pro life, then just on this fact, right?and when he said he was glad he had guys with guns around his daughters-oh the humanity!).

Right, we cannot pick and choose who lives and who dies (unless you are a mother who does not want her unborn child) (or a citizen that the administration would deem a threat, without due process if need be-Habeus, who needs him). (how's that gonna work for future health care, by the way-I'm not too sure about that)
But the result of death, in the case of legitimate self defense is an unintended effect, as taught by the Church. Would we not either be able to defend someone with our arms, our fists, I've seen death result in that too.

But no, peace-loving, pro life gun owners in America are now being treated as the agressors-anti life. (You know Holder says we must brain wash people into thinking things like this)You hear the calls to shoot and kill these people. There is no excuse for this. This should be condemned by legislators on both sides. But I think the government rather likes this fevered pitch, so it can have more excuse to take extreme measures, just like when they thought blacks shouldn't have guns in this country. They couldn't be trusted to protect themselves or their families wth guns either.

many police officers and others I know have guns in their homes-some even carry at Mass on Sundays, (by the imprinting I see). Some even encourage their spouse to protect themselves when they are on duty. A judge I know, recently held someone at bay with his Glock 45 after a break in in his home. I wouldn't conclude he was not prolife-no one died there. Gosh, never heard that from my pastor or bishop that they are all against life.

Murder, as Karls says abortion is, on the other hand would indicate an premeditated intent to kill a human being. This is never condoned by the Church. There is no teaching on prudential judgements here. It is mal en se, (unlike an innanimate object in the home) and no government should promote this, by common reasoning of natural law. and no Catholic polititians should promote it either.No Catholic citizens, if they know thier faith and live it should promote it either. Taxes providing for these inhumane acts are gravely immoral. Forcing the Church to directly provide for anti-life procecures is also gravely immoral. We, as Catholic, need to keep ALL of these things in mind when government is making decisions on account of us, especially when claiming crisis situations and by- passing normal debate. and we must be aware of those who try and twist our faith, and the intent of the 2nd amendment.
KarlVDH
5 months ago
Look... either you've got a gun for protection or dou don't, and if you do, the simple truth is that its purpose is to kill a human being... you cannot say "Kill him" and "Pro life" and be reasonable, Sara. It's just not truth.. You're either pro LIFE or you're not. This is why the Church DOES teach against violence, does condemn war, does condemn capital punishment, and why we pray for peace. you don't get to choose who is worthy of life and who isn't; you're either pro LIFE or you're not.
SaraPalen
5 months ago
Thank God all our mothers were pro birth at least once! Amen, let us celebrate pro birth-after all, it is the Christmas season-the time of our dear Savior's birth

By your logic, Karl, even the Pope would not be pro life.

this is not Christian teaching of my faith, nor anything close to 2nd amendment rights of our Constitution, based on thousands of years of common law practice.

I live and work in a world surrounded by death,drugs, violence, and poverty-the wounded, young and old, in body and spirit, bed bugs, bullet holes and all, surround me. Few see what is really happening in the bowels of society, including babies, living and dead in toilets, the lost and forgotten children in America, many of which no statistics are collected for. It is all too real for me, but of course they are just blobs, so I should feel nothing in my conscience for them, or their mothers who suffer their loss.

What I see contributing most to this violence and disorder is a tremendous spiritual poverty.
The children live without structure or positive family life. Someone coud be dying infront of them, but as long as they can still watch Oprah on their tv, they really don't give a crap (no lie). It is sad to see this loss for all of humanity.

The answer will not be found where this government looks for answers.
This is a government of the culture of death; its agents have given weapons to criminals. (including the weapon of money to the likes of those who kill the young in the womb)

I have killed no one with a gun, nor do I intend to.
(On the other hand, I do have a freezer full of venison).
Jerry N
5 months ago
KarlVDH: "The sole purpose of the thing, then, is to kill another human being."

Karl just added another rather obvious lie to the plethora of unrepentant lies he has already posted in this discussion thread.

Anyone with even a modest intellect can name a dozen or more productive and safe uses for privately owned firearms, including the main one which is to protect life. It is exceedingly pro-life and pro-liberty to also be pro-2nd Amendment rights.

Prev12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment