Leah Barkoukis
In his weekly address to the nation, President Obama said that, “we have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this. Regardless of the politics.” He said that, “we have endured far too many of these tragedies in the last few years,” and pointed to the massacre in Connecticut yesterday as the latest in a number of recent incidents. So what does he mean by ‘meaningful action’? More gun control, of course.   

Yesterday, a Democratic lawmaker was even more forthright:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who represents portions of New York City, said he was encouraged by Mr. Obama’s statement on Friday afternoon that the mass shooting, which claimed the lives of 20 young children, requires “meaningful action” by Congress, but hopes those words turn into concrete legislation.

“These incidents, these horrible, horrible incidents … are happening more and more frequently. And they will continue to happen more and more frequently until someone with the bully pulpit, and that means the president, takes leadership and pushes Congress,” Mr. Nadler said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” with Ed Schultz.

Mr. Nadler was asked whether the Newtown tragedy could be the turning point in many Democrats’ longstanding struggle to enact stronger gun laws.

I think we will be there if the president exploits it, and otherwise we’ll go on to the next” incident, Mr. Nadler said.

As emotions run high in horrendous situations like this, those who view the weapon as the problem exploit the pain and anger of the nation to have a great Second Amendment debate hoping it will lead to “concrete legislation” and thus, a solution.  But would more legislation truly result in greater safety? Jazz Shaw over at Hot Air makes a very good point:

“[…] Unless more details prove otherwise, this was, in short, the almost completely unpredictable result of the actions of an evil madman who had given no actionable signals before his horrific assault.

Let’s stop and think for a moment about how the shooter got these guns. He took them from someone else who legally obtained them. He stole those guns. And this, of course, demonstrates yet again that those who are willing to employ guns to engage in violence aren’t going to pause and think about whether or not they should commit a robbery along the way. To stop an action like that which we witnessed yesterday you would have to eliminate the existence of guns, and we’ve all seen the figures on how well that works.

And let’s not forget that Connecticut already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.”

Unconscionable acts of violence have been committed throughout history without the use of guns, however. That’s why as Americans engage in yet another round of debates over the issue, it’s important that one thing in particular is not overlooked: The role of evil.

Is it to blame?


Leah Barkoukis

Leah Barkoukis is the online features editor and web editor at Townhall.com.

Author Photo credit: Jensen Sutta Photography