The horror that unfolded last Friday at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., has left a nation stunned, lives shattered and an old debate — gun control — suddenly re-energized. It was inevitable. When a troubled young man uses a military-style rifle to slaughter 20 children, reasonable people wonder if society needs more safeguards against such violence.
Previous mass shootings produced only muted talk about regulation (one was in 2009 in Samson, Ala., just 80 miles from Fort Walton Beach). President Obama’s first term was a washout when it came to tighter limits on firearms.
Newtown changed all of that. Less than a week after the rampage, outraged citizens nationwide are demanding new gun-control laws.
The shift has been so abrupt that some gun-rights advocates haven’t caught up. They’re still using the arguments of yesteryear.
This isn’t about guns, letter writers tell us. It’s about the lack of prayer in school.
It isn’t about guns, others say. It’s about inadequate care for the mentally ill.
It isn’t about guns, still others assure us. It’s about violent video games.
But it IS about guns. Adam Lanza didn’t beat those kids playing “Call of Duty.” He shot them.
Some Florida legislators seem to understand this, although they approach the gun debate in their usual cockeyed fashion. Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, said this week that if more people in schools were armed, everything would be fine. The Florida Education Association was, predictably, appalled.
The National Rifle Association and other pro-gun voices have been mostly silent in the wake of Newtown. Our guess: They’re waiting it out, hoping today’s surge of interest in new gun laws will recede.
If it doesn’t, they’ll have to come up with better arguments than we’ve heard so far. Their critics, those pulling for more gun control, look at the Second Amendment’s reference to “a well regulated Militia” and figure the key word is “regulated.” After the murders of 20 children, stricter regulation may well be likely.