Islamic radicalism was not an issue in Newtown three years ago but in the aftermath of that tragedy similar lines were drawn. The governor of Connecticut led the charge for stricter gun control laws but others argued that the focus should be on the mentally ill young killer who wielded the weapons. Three years ago I wondered why people on both sides of the issue preferred to "demonize" each other instead of working together. I still feel the same way and reprint my Newtown article below since the response to San Bernardino has been much the same.
###
###
I know that violent acts are going
on all over the world but the massacre of twenty innocent children and six
school staff in Newtown hit so close to home that it broke through our
psychological firewall.
Since the tragedy innumerable
words have been written and by now the newspapers are full of articles and
letters offering solutions to the problem. Inevitably, most take a one sided
view. Some writers call for stricter gun control laws. Others decry the
violence in our entertainment media and overall culture. Finally, others call
for reforms in treatment of the so-called violent mentally ill.
I would like to suggest all of the
above. It seems striking to me that most advocates of stricter gun control are
also ardent defenders of Hollywood’s right to do whatever it pleases in
depicting violence. At the same time, opponents of violence in the media are
often strong supporters of gun ownership. It seems that it is time for those on
both the left and the right to come together and adopt each other’s solutions.
I have never owned a gun and never
plan to own one, but I know very good people who do. Two beloved uncles were
avid hunters, and so is my younger brother, a retired NYPD officer who also
happens to be a fanatic about gun safety.
Even before the massacre of the
children and their teachers in Newtown, it was hard for me to understand the
intransigence of some people on both sides of the issue of gun control. On the
one hand, I have never been able to understand why a hunter might require an
assault rifle or a handgun that is just about the modern equivalent of the
machine guns that were banned in the 1930s.
On the other hand, I am aware that
even states like Connecticut that have the most stringent gun-control laws are
among those with the most violent crime rates. Bridgeport, Connecticut is
usually among the Nation’s leaders in firearm related murders. Frankly, I
believe that the possibility that a one of my neighbors might actually own a
revolver is a real deterrent to crime in my neighborhood.
Still, I don’t believe that the
right to bear arms allows me or my neighbor to assemble an arsenal fit for a
SWAT team. We have banned especially lethal firearms in the past and we can do
it again. I know that criminals will probably find ways to get their hands on
assault rifles, but the supply could be limited at the source.
While we are at it, I think that
there is another so-called right that needs to be somewhat restricted. Why is
it that proponents of stricter gun control laws never seem to oppose the acts
of violence that appear daily in films, video games, and on TV? The release of a new film this
Christmas season was delayed because of the massacre in Newtown. Was it perhaps
because the film begins with a rooftop sniper looking through his scope at a
young girl? You could be watching “Miracle on 34th St.” this season
only to see it interrupted by commercials for films full of bloodshed. I can’t
imagine the violence that my grandchildren see on their video games where they
themselves become the shooter.
Maybe, most of us wouldn’t be led
to commit acts of violence by witnessing violence, but what about the mentally
ill? Some will say that exposure to this violence does no harm. Some also argue
that it limits free speech and stifles artistic creativity. If what people see on TV does not
influence behavior, why do advertisers spend so much money promoting their
wares, or politicians buy so much ad-time to get elected?
As far as artistic creativity is
concerned, I believe that I can make a very strong case for censorship. During
the 1930s the film industry adopted the now infamous “Production Code.” Faced
with the threat of government censorship resulting from a public outcry,
Hollywood agreed to police itself. Any new film would have to be reviewed and
modified it if failed to meet certain set standards. The Production code was
abandoned decades ago but modern filmmakers and critics still bemoan the
censorship that gripped Hollywood.
Recently, Turner Classic Movies
released DVD sets of some of the pre-code films and a reviewer in the Wall St.
Journal thought that the Code had been a great tragedy. However, in his own
review he could only point to one or two films of even limited value from the
pre-Code era. He failed to mention that the adoption of the infamous Code
coincided with what most critics regard as the Golden Age of film.
For example, 1939 is regarded as
one of the greatest years in Hollywood history. “Gone with the Wind” swept most
of the Oscars, but moviegoers that year also saw: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington;
Wuthering Heights; Goodbye, Mr. Chips; Stagecoach; the Wizard of Oz; Ninotchka;
Of Mice and Men; and Dark Victory. The next two years saw the likes of Citizen
Kane and Casablanca—two of the greatest films of all time. Restrictions on the
so-called creativity of producers, directors, and artists only forced them to
greater heights of excellence.
The Newtown massacre occurred right in the midst of the
Christmas season. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if people on both sides of the
political spectrum could come together next year to make America a more peaceful
society?
###
No comments:
Post a Comment