Compounding a tragedy

There is considerable evidence documenting the difficulties that autistic persons have both processing and demonstrating empathy. No one knows to what extent those limitations may have contributed to yesterday's explosion of violence in Connecticut. But whatever our limitations, we all have choices.  

Some prominent political types, who are not handicapped by deficits in empathy, were particularly tone-deaf in their reactions. Given the the unconscionable mass murder of 6 year old children, one would hope that the gun rights and gun control advocates might remain silent for a few days; perhaps until the victims are identified and the dead are buried.

Carol Platt Liebau sensed something sinister in President Obama's call for "meaningful action to prevent this from happening again." Not to be outdone, Representative Nadler called for the president to "exploit the tragedy" in the service of gun control legislation. These are just a sample of inappropriate and ill-timed responses.  

We have lost a measure of propriety. We once understood that the feelings of the grieving loved ones are more important than our right to speak. Why don't these people stifle themselves? Why doesn't someone else?
        
Senator Ron Johnson is an honorable, thoughtful and articulate public servant, one of a rare few in Washington. Yet he felt compelled to go on television to defend 2nd amendment rights in the 48 hours immediately following the tragedy in Tucson. It was painfully inappropriate. Who thought it was important to defend gun owner's rights in that moment? Who thought the argument would even be heard? Why didn't someone have the grace to say "Please stay home. Your position is going to be criticized today. It's okay. Stay home anyway."

In the coming weeks some discussion of gun rights/ restrictions will occur. We should not lose sight of the founder's foremost concern. They feared a government that could disarm the citizenry. History across the globe validates that concern. 

That said, an unfettered right to bear arms doesn't really afford us much protection in that regard. It needs to be weighed against the danger that heavily armed citizens pose to each other. Guns exacerbate the harm that impulsive anger provokes.

But before engaging in the gun debate, we should seriously examine how grievance came to be considered a virtue in America. Guns are a dangerous tool in the hands of people who feel entitled to do harm. Mere grievance grants them permission to visit violence on to others.  You have a grievance with your girlfriend, hit her; have a grievance with the guy crossing the picket line, assault him.

The gun rights advocates are right about one thing. Most gun owners do not endanger anyone, even those possessing the most dangerous weapons.

Those who feel entitled to exact satisfaction for their grievances are a danger to everyone, more so when they are armed. Back before deregulation, it was necessary to demonstrate a need for your services to secure an ICC (trucking) permit. Maybe we should think about requiring gun purchasers to demonstrate a need for select weapons and let state and local communities make the judgments about which weapons to allow and which buyers to license.

We have confused our young. Kindness and empathy are regarded as weakness. Anger and self-absorption are seen as strength.  The gun laws are a problem. The lack of empathy among us is another. It would be easy to overestimate the former and underestimate the latter..