In a time that is traditionally set aside for the family and holiday spirit, fellow Americans are trying to cope with the task of planning the funerals of their young children. The shooting at Newton, Connecticut is a tragedy beyond what anyone could imagine. The lives of innocent elementary students were taken away suddenly and senselessly.
This mass shooting did not only have an impact on the victims' families or the small town of Newton. The whole psyche of the nation has been affected in a traumatic way. I, who will one day have a family of my own, fear that my children will be brought into a world that is far different from when I was born.
While the nation grieves, there is the need to find answers. What could have been done to prevent this crime? Would it be prudent to immediately pass strict gun control laws? How about increasing the opportunity for low-income individuals to obtain mental health coverage?
These "solutions" may increase the nation's safety, but cannot take away the pain of the victims and their families. Nevertheless, it is wise to have a discussion about current law related to gun control and mental health care.
Gun Control
In June 26, 2008 there was a 2nd Amendment case, D.C. v. Heller, wherein a strict gun regulation law was struck down. The District of Columbia attempted to prohibit the use of handguns, unless it was registered and in the home of the owner, unloaded or locked away. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that "[the law] makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is unconstitutional."
The National Rifle Association, or NRA, declared it a "major victory." The minority opinion disagreed with the NRA and stated that "the words 'the people' [in the 2nd Amendment] do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well-regulated militia.
In sum, the Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that every citizen has the right to defend himself/herself. The dissent's opinion, that the rights of gun ownership are supposed to be decided within the context of an 18th century world, when 95% of the population lived in rural areas, is simply an opinion, not the supreme law of the land.
The effect of this monumental 2nd Amendment case has been disappointing to gun enthusiasts and advocates. Since Heller, the Court has upheld most gun regulations that have attempted to expand on the requirements for those wanting to purchase weapons or ammunition. For example, a felon or a person committed to a mental institution may not legally purchase a firearm, and laws strengthening those policies are constitutional.
Heller may be more symbolic than anything but it sets precedent for future regulation. States are already thinking about legislation that could pass the scrutiny of that case. California is discussing legislation that will make it more difficult to purchase ammunition. Congress is considering laws that will curb the gun show "double standard", in which private sellers are able to bypass the requirements that all licensed dealers must meet before selling a firearm.
In my opinion, we need to regulate ammunition to the same extent as guns. Adam Lanza had hundreds of rounds of ammunition. There is no purpose to have a large amount of ammunition to defend yourself. Do we need to place hundreds of ammunition boxes near the window, instead of a Christmas tree, to ward off potential criminals? I think not. We should also implement stricter background checks and require mandated educational classes to instruct people on gun safety prior to their purchase.
Mental Health
There is confusion among citizens about mental health. For far too long, there has been a stigma surrounding it. If a person is suffering from depression or bipolar disorder, individuals may misinterpret it as weakness. More education about mental illness needs to be a priority despite the fact that Adam Lanza may have had some variant of autism, a mental syndrome.
Almost 1/4 of the population will suffer from a mental illness and less than half will be treated. And since it is an illness, like any other common illness, a person suffering from post-traumatic disorder or depression needs to be treated.The Affordable Care Act ("ACA") has already attempted to cover more individuals that need this type of healthcare. Employers, both large and small, will have to offer policies that cover mental health. Moreover, the ACA will also invest in recruiting mental health professionals. That's a good start.
But more importantly, the conservative governors in the red states need to expand Medicaid to cover low-income individuals. So far, they have issued statements that they are unwilling to allow the implementation of the ACA. I find this both morally unacceptable and dangerous. Is it not possible that a low-income person suffering depression could resort to a mass shooting because of no treatment?
This is a time for reflection and prayer. But I also do not think that sending condolences is enough. We should have an honest conversation about how to prevent a tragedy of this magnitude in the future. As citizens of this great country, it our responsibility to those children that we find solutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment