Tragedies like the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut jar each American’s sense of security. We trust that when our children step foot on big yellow school buses they travel to a place of happiness, of learning, of safety. In such a haven, we never would imagine that a lunatic, with no apparent motive besides his lunacy, would disrupt and destroy so many innocent lives.
Naturally, then, the conversation and debate arising from tragedies like this centers on trying to make sense of the senseless. Politicians, talking-head television anchors, and families around the dinner table discuss gun control, violent media, and mental health measures. This conversation can only prove beneficial and incredibly healthy for America’s future. Only by opening bipartisan, honest channels of communication can we hope to understand and prevent such horror in the future. However, one particular measure perhaps proves too invasive and inefficacious – and even dangerous.
I refer to a recent practice taken by some newspapers: that of publishing the names of registered gun owners in their local areas. If this measure had the potential to quell gun violence, I would wholeheartedly support it. In this case, the tragedy of privacy invasion would not compare to the tragedy of lost lives.
However, as a general rule, individuals who procure and carry guns legally do not pose any serious security threat. Newspaper readers need not fear the widow next door who chooses to carry a gun for protection. They need not fear Mr. Jones down the street who enjoys hunting in the Spring. Whether or not everyone agrees with this law, these individuals have the legal right to carry a firearm. They certainly should not be demonized and have their privacy invaded needlessly for exercising this right.
Furthermore, publishing the names of registered gun owners may have negative, unintended consequences beyond simply this invasion of privacy. After tragedies like Newtown, America’s fear level rises to near frenzied levels. Why give newspaper readers unnecessary fears by publishing these names? Why increase the hysteria without good cause? Once again, individuals who legally and respectably procure firearms generally need not be feared. Perhaps even more worrisome, though, is the effect this publication may have on the firearms black market. Perfectly respectable individuals who would have procured weapons openly and legally may now seek them through covert measures to protect their privacy. If the government would like to have any hope of regulating firearms, their first task is to ensure that individuals are legally registering their weapons. Any action that runs counter to this can only create more confusion and perhaps even danger.
What, then, should be done to stop such horrible suffering? How can we as a nation stop such massacres from occurring again? Firstly, united, national efforts need to be made to demolish the thriving firearms black market. Some may wonder whether this is practical or even possible. Without such efforts, though, madmen can easily gain access to quantities of ammunition and models of weapons that state and federal laws would not allow. Furthermore, measures must be taken to prevent unstable individuals from obtaining firearms of any kind. This means that, before someone passes a background check to obtain a firearm, valuable information must be available regarding prior convictions and mental health status. This could also mean administering confidential psychological assessments and mental health batteries to those seeking weapons. Beyond anything else, perhaps, it also means continuing the conversation. It means learning more about how and why people like Adam Lanza inflict such misery and destruction. It means understanding what in our culture drives such violence. I do not pretend that any of these solutions will be quick or easy, or that preventing all instances of violence is even possible. However, it seems clear that publishing the names of registered gun holders without looking at the greater, overarching picture proves not only invasive and ineffective but harmful.
