Violence and media to blame for mass killings?
Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - 1:13 pm

To the Editor:

My comment is in line with gun control and the recent Boston incident. We are crisis managers which means we react to a crisis but don’t really seek to prevent it until it happens and sometimes afterward.

The gun laws are an example of this. Making it more difficult to obtain guns and ammunition does not address the impetus of the problem.

We need to address the reason these shootings happen and possessing a gun is not the reason.

I admit that it is easier to try to tightly control guns, which we know will not work.

Have we banned bombs? Yes.

Does it help? Not really.

The bombs go off when the person with the reason decides to detonate it. In the 1970s I bought a copy of the Anarchist’s Cookbook (which you can buy) where it describes how to do this.

You know, freedom of the press. We can argue that IF there are no guns and bombs this won’t happen again.

But this is a fallacy. We have the Second Amendment and knowing this we need to start to understand that we should identify the reasons and not blame inanimate objects.

Centuries ago, during the Middle Ages, when a messenger delivered a message to the king they would be killed if the king did not like the message, usually by beheading. Hence the phrase, “Don’t kill the messenger.”

But why was the king really mad? Now the question is “how do we find the reasons?” Is it the background check? That’s helpful but empty since anyone can act out at any time for their reason.

My feeling is that as a boy in the 50s we had no gun issues like we do today. What has changed?

Deaths in the media were suggested, there were no bloody wounds, no “SAW” movies, no torture or overly dramatized deaths on television.

Our present weak caveat is that “this film contains graphic scenes and may not be suitable for all viewers.”

Although weak, it does recognize the reason. We have become a desensitized society, which in my view, is the reason.

Rather than attack the Second Amendment we would be faced with attacking the First Amendment. Now we have to weigh the importance of entertainment and suggestibility against our own safety.

Dr. Steven Gilbert, Canton