Today I'd like to talk about the nation's reaction to the massacre of the innocents in Newtown, Connecticut, and the reaction of the nation to it.  It's important to note that this senseless slaughter of 20 beautiful young people, their teachers, and killer Adam Lanza's mother is gut-wrenching and elicits emotions that touch us all so deeply that it is difficult not to lash out at all of the perceived causes for this horror:  assault weapons, lax school security, and a lack of adequate mental health care are just three of the most often cited.  But even before the first of the victims was laid to rest, the reaction from the media and the public was a mix of fear and loathing; a fear of the next mass shooting and a loathing of the weapons behind the carnage and of those those who would ban them, depending on your politics. 

Let's look at assault weapons first.  California Senator Diane Feinstein and President Barack Obama are leading the charge to revive and expand the federal assault weapons ban to include high-capacity magazines and weapons that have two or more military characteristics.  Adam Lanza used just such a weapon, a Bushmaster assault rifle (the civillian version of the AR-15) to assassinate his victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  But was this massacre a function of the weapon Lanza used, or of the deranged mind of the shooter coupled with the availability of the weapons that his mother legally owned?  It is hard to say that the general appearance of a gun is more likely to make it a murder weapon. 

Another contentious point in the proposed ban on high-capacity magazines, limiting new weapons to 10 rounds or less.  The argument is that fewer bullets per re-load means fewer casualties before the shooter becomes vulnerable between magazines.  This is a difficult argument for gun-rights advocates to overcome and is probably the most defensible provision in the proposed ban.  It's hard to argue that one can not defend one's home or kill wild game with 10 bullets as opposed to 30. 

Universal background checks are likely the least defensible provision in this proposal because they are the least enforceable.  There are too many situations involving a gun ownership transfer that just can't really apply under a background check.  Examples include personal private sales of individual weapons.  Private citizens do not have access to the vast data base that licensed gun sellers do and even they are often fooled by those who lie on their forms.  Also, as we do with every other legal commodity, apart from obvious documentation required at the point of sale (i.e.: a drivers license to buy a car) it is incumbent upon the buyer in a private party transaction to be legally authorized to own and utilize the item in question.  When we look at other types of transfers, such as buying guns as gifts or handing then down as part of an estate to future generations, the question of back ground checks gets even thornier.  Does a father have to run a background check on his 18-year old son when giving him a shotgun for Christmas?  Does a Grandfather have to do a background check on his granddaughter before leaving her his revolver in his will?  These are questions that would have to be answered.  As for the oft-cited "gunshow loophole", that is a situation where background checks can and should be conducted as the technology to operate just as a retail story would is readily available at these venues.

Finally, as to Adam Lanza's mental state, that is yet to be determined.  We've seen many other high profile shooters (Jared Loughner, John Hinkley Jr., James Holmes, etc...) determined to be mentally ill and there are already laws in place to preclude these people from possessing guns.  There is a great argument to be made for improving out mental health system but in an era of budget cuts and curtailed deficit spending, it is difficult to see how governments will find the funds needed to make the improvements that will make any real difference.  President Obama's healthcare reform act may be able to address some of these funding issues in that mental health is covered under the law but it remains to be seen if it will have any real effect on the availability mental healthcare and destigmatization of a diagnosis that can follow you for the rest of your life.

While mass-murders like Newtown CT, Aurora CO, Tucson AZ are gut-wrenching, they are thankfully rare.  Some would argue that their rarity means additional gun legislation is not needed because these are societal aberrations and far from the norm.  But 9-11 was an aberration that was far from the norm and, while 3,000 people dead and a forever-changed New York skyline is much bigger than any one mass shooting, we changed an entire industry and we all live differently because of it. 

The sad truth is that, whatever the weapons and whatever the motivations, this tragedy will repeat itself.  The criminals will change, the number of victims will change, the scene of the crime will change but the killing will continue because Humanity will never change: we are a sometimes violent species and there is often no rhyme or reason for what we do.