As people continue to debate the circumstances surrounding the tragedy that took place in Newtown, Connecticut, I want to take a step back and examine how people are responding to it.

We humans want to live in a world that is safe, tranquil and predictable. So, when a tragedy such as the one in Connecticut takes place, we are appalled in part because our tranquility has been shattered and our sense of security has been disrupted.

Although we grieve for the victims of such a tragedy, we are not emotionally satisfied with just grieving. We want our sense of security to be restored, and often we insist that someone pay a price for the loss that we have experienced.

So, how do we react when the party responsible for the loss is dead?

Well, you can’t punish a dead person. You can’t take your anger out on a dead person. So, who or what do you take your anger out on?

In discussion threads pertaining to the Connecticut shooting, some people are venting their anger by blaming prescription drugs for the actions of Adam Lanza. Yet (at the time of this writing), there is no evidence that Lanza had been using prescription medication. Thus, the complaint about prescription drugs is premature at best.

The assumption of drug use on the part of Adam Lanza is due to a belief that Lanza was mentally ill. It has been reported that Lanza had Asperger’s syndrome, which, according to Dr. Manny Alvarez, is a mild form of autism. However, a person having autism isn’t the same thing as a person having a mental illness that makes the person dangerous to self and others. Thus far, nothing in Lanza’s background indicates that he was a danger to himself or others.

In short, there were no red flags pertaining to Lanza that would have made people think that he was prone to commit an act of violence.

That lack of red flags makes some people feel uneasy. Red flags indicate predictability, and people want to live in a predictable world. A lack of red flags means a lack of predictability, and people can have difficulty coping with a lack of predictability.

Aside from Adam Lanza’s mental health, some people are focusing on Lanza’s ability to get hold of firearms. The reaction of some people is to demand more gun-control legislation, as if more regulation could have prevented Lanza from committing his crime. As it turns out, Lanza used firearms that were owned by his mother, and thus far, there is no evidence that the mother did anything wrong in acquiring the firearms that she had. Also, thus far, nobody has offered evidence that any new gun law would have prevented Lanza from doing what he did.

Then there are the complaints about a perceived lack of security at Sandy Hook Elementary School. As it turns out, Lanza didn’t just waltz into the school and start shooting. Instead, he forced his way passed the security measure that existed at the school.

So, looking at the facts known thus far, it appears to me that plenty of knee-jerk reactions have taken place in response to the Connecticut tragedy.

Human beings are good at responding to known threats. Humans can figure out how to minimize - if not completely eliminate – known threats. The unknown threats are the ones that challenge our coping abilities. If we know about a threat, then we don’t necessarily feel helpless because we believe that a solution to the threat can be discovered.

It is the unknown threat that really scares us. While discussing the Connecticut tragedy, media personality Juan Williams proclaimed that something must be done. But what can be done to prevent an unknown threat, as Adam Lanza was? When interviewed, people who knew Lanza and his mother said the same thing, that nothing about Adam Lanza made them believe that he was capable of an act of violence.

In an attempt to restore the tranquility that was shattered, people will continue to debate the details of Adam Lanza’s life, will (I predict) continue to assign blame to parties that are not to blame for what happened. However, I do not see tranquility being restored until people face up to a harsh piece of reality: Evil happens. As the late psychiatrist M. Scott Peck reveals in his book People of the Lie, evil is as real as the bullets that took the lives of Adam Lanza’s victims. It cannot be diagnosed away or legislated away, and it can defeat the best-laid plans of people.

Am I saying that Adam Lanza himself was evil? No. Am I saying that what he did was evil? Yes. Evil existed long before the invention of firearms and prescription medication, and evil will exist even if those inventions of mankind were to cease to exist. Acknowledging evil’s existence helps me to cope with it whenever it appears, and I certainly do not rely on anything man-made to be the ultimate antidote for evil. Some things are just beyond the capacity of mankind.

For me, restoration of tranquility comes from a source that atheists deny the existence of, the same source that brought tranquility back into my life after my wife died from medical complications pertaining to cancer. Churches in Newtown, Connecticut are now full of people seeking tranquility from the same source.

What source are you seeking tranquility from?

wasnt his mother the first to die

"But what can be done to prevent an unknown threat, as Adam Lanza was? When interviewed, people who knew Lanza and his mother said the same thing, that nothing about Adam Lanza made them believe that he was capable of an act of violence"


its now coming out that she told friends he was troubled and she was worried about him, that he didnt seem to feel physical pain and had been burning himself,,,,


I have tranquility everyday, because I know crap happens, but I also know alot of the crap that happens is preventable,,,

God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change
Courage to change the things we can
and the Wisdom to know the difference


we can change how we pay attention to our loved ones
we can change how we help the emotionally and mentally unstable
we can change how accessible our weapons are and how destructive,,,

we cant change what happened to the shooter and his victims,,,only learn from it,,,

I'd like to know the source of that claim.

Anyway, there is a reason why in my OP I keep saying "at the time of this writing".

Where is the proof the boy was EVIL?

Crap may have been building and he just lost it.

BTW, it's pretty convenient his computer was destroyed, no?

Is EVIL killing 175 innocent kids in Pakistan?

Does it make it more ok if he just lost it?

he did not lose it, if he had, he would not have planned it. Common sence suggests that if one wears a bullet proof vest, with several weapons then killed 20 little kids is a good indication that malice was a great motivation coupled with a mental disturbance. Malice is evil.

There is no tranquility from this type of violence.

If like the religious zealots, feel god is sending a message, and feel justified, that is sick, too sick.

Then you have the gun zealots who only care if their own selfish rights will be effected when 20 6 year olds die needlessly.

Then you have those like myself who are so f ing disgusted by the gun crazies in this country bearing this blood on their hands and never offering to help stop the violence against innocents. They offer no help but ignorant gun crazy ideas of bringing guns into the schools. Stupidity.

Mental health is ignored in this country which along with the violence we teach our children with spankings and our acceptance of gun violence and wars. With our use of fear and hate to push religious and political ideals onto our children and susceptible adults. And add guns into the mix of this unwellness which the idea of needing a gun is mental unwellness in and of itself makes for no end to the innocent blood on the hands of the gun fanatics in this country.

Men with guns enforce your laws, men with guns keep your nation safe. The threat of Men with guns are all that stand in the way of you and violence at the hands of anyone who has an inkling to commit it.

Don't pretend for a second that men (human beings) with guns are not what sets limits on human behaviors. Threat of death is the greatest threat, no law has the same capability that the threat of death has, but ultimately all law is backed by the threat of violence at the hands of a man with a gun, without such the law would be so much toilet paper.

Build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door. This applies to anyone with an inkling of capability, and even if by magic every gun in the world disappeared AND the knowledge to build them, it would not take long for someone to create a weapon that would do the job.

Since we have no magic, and technology to make weapons exists in every garage in our country . . . .

Yea. The ideas being put forth by you are far beyond asking for magic, it assumes human nature can be controlled by words written down on paper in absence of the threat of violence.

Silly.

WELL SAID!!!!!

I AGREE....!

Hypothetically speaking, let's suppose you are the country's dictator with the power to ban & destroy all the guns in the country. Would you do it? If so, What else would you do in the interest of public safety to protect the lives of innocent people?

If implementation of your policies resulted in even higher numbers of innocent people being harmed and injured, What would you do to fix that?

Have you got a better idea than training and arming school staff with firearms? Since you consider the idea stupid, I'm sure that you do, so let's hear it.

And that is a bunch of garbage.

Our societies are good because most people are innately good. Guns are not the reason for the goodness of this country at any level. It is stupidity to believe so. None..None of the wars fought by us actually threatened this nation to a large degree at any point.

It is a taught mental unwellness that a gun makes you more powerful.

It would be nice to think so, and at heart I truly believe that too, but c'mon!….Do you really think our modern society is "good"??



Again we agree.



Better tell that to the military and the police…I think they still operate under the sick illusion that it does.

A gun DOES make you more powerful…That's just a fact of life….Live with it.

I could not be a dictator because I don't believe one person has all the answers.

Guns are a bane to this country.. they serve no good purpose even hunting can be done without them.

Far too many innocents are killed by them when they misfire, when they are accidentally set off, when an irresponsible gun owner leaves the gun for the children to shoot each other or gets it stolen, when a gun owner shows their son how to shoot believing that guns make them more safe and he goes and shoots and kill 20 6 year olds and a few teachers, and all the other long list of heinous crimes committed by gun crazies, etc....

And the good done by the guns is almost non existent.

If you are a criminal and believe a person has a gun ...you just sneak up on em and don't give em a chance to use it, right? So what kind of safety does it provide?

The only way a gun or a million will help you against the government is if you blow your own head off before they get to you because they will get you no matter what you stockpile. And it is how the planners planned it if you read Addams writing on the 2nd amendment.

More guns do not solve anything.

The more guns we have the more crimes there are and the more deaths per crime it seems.

Hell, believing in the idea that a gun is needed is pretty much mental unwellness all by itself.

Tell it to the Swiss, or the people in Kennesaw.



To spite the "common sense" of the assumption, the statistics refute it.



Maybe, but needing a gun and not having one is pretty much the death of you.

"It is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it." -- me(?)

It is funny how gun advocated usually are anti abortion but believe anti abortion laws will prevent abortions and traffic laws will prevent car accidents, etc... but mention a gun law for preventing gun violence and they lose their damn minds.

I think one of the worst things we can do is stereotype people. I'll grant you that there are a lot of loose screws on both sides of the gun debate, but you'll find them on both sides of any debate.

In any debate or issue, we should rely on logic and reason. This is especially important regarding the debate on guns and the second amendment. I've played the gun advocate in this debate because I've looked at the issue of gun ownership for years and I've made some critical observations, but before I get into those, I think instead of digging into the foxholes for an extended battle, both sides should really look at the other's POV and find the commonalities that may put an end to much of the stereotyping. So let's take a poll and see how both sides answer.

Pro/anti-gun people hate to see innocent people killed. T/F

1) Guns convey great power. T/F

2) Guns come with great responsibility. T/F

3) Mentally ill/incompetent people should not have guns. T/F

4) Violent criminals should not have guns. T/F

5) Everyone has the right to defend themselves by any reasonable means. T/F

6) Violent criminals will always have guns no matter what laws are in place. T/F

7) Anyone owning a gun should be well trained in its safe handling, maintenance and use. T/F

8) Not having the means to save lives means being helpless to do so and possibly letting people die. T/F

If we are logical, the answer in all cases would be "T" no matter which side of the gun debate we are on.

Because of 6), 5) gives everyone but the 3)'s & 4)s the right to have and carry guns, but with that right comes 2) because of 1) and therefore 7), which may spare them from the regret of 8).


Whether you love them or hate them, guns are a fact of life that can't be ignored or legislated out of existence. I'm sure both sides of the gun debate want to see sensible gun laws. All 8 of the above items demand it. The usual reactionary crap the legislative bodies produce just isn't cutting it. These are not stupid people, so I have to ask myself, why are they passing stupid laws instead of sensible ones. It makes me suspect a darker agenda, but maybe that's just me.

In any event, I think BOTH sides of the debate should get together over their commonalites and deluge their reps (with a petition too?) with a demand for SENSIBLE, SANE gun laws to replace the ill-thought-out, reactionary crap they are about to try to stuff down everyone's throat. You can even get together and suggest the laws they should implement on a national petition.

Seven of the autopsies performed on the children of the massacre in Newtown showed between 3 and 11 gunshot wounds per child.

As I stated in another thread....

8,600 deaths attributed to gun violence in the USA last year (the weapon of choice), 4,000 by knife or sharp object, 2,000 by fist or feet.

Over 38,000 deaths occured from alcohol related vehicular accidents. Any child 16 or over can own and operate a vehicle "with a license", and obtaining alcohol (as we all know) is no problem at all since like TVs, it's almost always in the house!

Do we ban cars then too? Restart alcohol prohibition laws?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf0MO55kMsI&feature=youtu.be

Is it more ok to kill 175 innocent kids with bombs?
That barely made the news
IMO, they were both acts of malice.