Humanist Parenting: Think. Teach. Love.

I would like to take some time to discuss the debate circulating in regards to the recent Connecticut school shootings. I have (as everyone does) lots of personal opinions about the cause and effect between school shootings and gun control, but I also did some research on the history of mass shootings and gun violence, so I would like to incorporate some of those ideas as well.

For the record, I don't think anyone is trying to take away our "right to bear arms" by imposing stricter laws on background checks and assault weapons that are solely used for mass killing. That being said, I think that the effects of a pro-gun culture on our thought patterns as a nation should be thoroughly evaluated. The sensationalist media has led us to believe that there is a murderer or rapist lurking around every corner, despite the fact that statistically, violent crime has steadily declined over the last decade and beyond.

The same cannot be said for school shootings, as they have increased at an alarming rate in the past 20 years, but I would like to remind you that Seung-Hui Cho, who was diagnosed with multiple mental illnesses prior to the Virginia Tech shootings, was legally allowed to obtain a handgun despite his documented cases of severe mental instability. These "bad guys" aren't all obtaining guns illegally. Are we so consumed with our right to bear arms being taken away, that we oppose more stringent background checks before selling them to people who are considered mentally unsound? Seung-Hui Cho had been accused in two cases of stalking at his school prior to this incident. This should not have come as a surprise to the people who were close to him.

That is just a small point I want to make about stricter gun control laws and how they relate to school shootings. If even a small number of people can be saved by simply doing a little extra work before selling them to people, is that not a worthwhile investment? Are there people out there who seriously oppose tougher restrictions meant only to save lives? I'm talking about the people who are insistent that the psychopaths are "ruining it for everyone." If you are so sure that most of you are mentally sound, law-abiding citizens who want the ability to carry a handgun or utilize a rifle for hunting, target practice, or what have you, why is it such a problem if we take steps to ensure that only THESE types of people are able to obtain and carry them? Because it's inconvenient? Honestly, I am asking and hope I get an answer because there are a lot of people in my feeds who are complaining about the idea of stricter gun control laws.

Now, this is not the case with Adam Lanza of the Connecticut shootings, who seems to have obtained his weapons from his mother, (he shot her in the face before leaving that morning) who purchased them legally, but there is another factor at play here: When we look at the history of young people obtaining guns and the injuries and murders that have resulted from these, most of them got them by taking them from a family member who had legally obtained them, which brings me back to gun culture.

A simple truth: A lot of parents have guns and are making them accessible to their children, friends and family. My question is why? If they simply want a gun for protection and keeping their family safe and nothing else, why do their children know where it is located in their home, and what's more, why do their children have an easy way of getting it in their possessions and out of the house without them knowing? Here are some of the reasons I could come up with:

1.They often aren't properly stored and secured.
2. If they ARE properly stored: They have made it clear and obvious to their children not only where the gun is located in their home, but how to access. (What is the point of this? Why would a child or teenager need to know not only where your weapons are, but how to unlock or obtain them? If you argue it's for their own protection, there is a reason that we have laws restricting the availability of guns to those who are over 18)
3. They have bragged about, shown off or opened their mouth to multiple people that they own a gun and where it can be found in their home.

The fact is that more and more people are opting to own guns as situations like these make us afraid for ourselves and the lives of our families. We want to be able to protect ourselves and we are convinced that the only way to do that is to own a firearm; that the only way to meet deadly force is with deadly force, obviously. If these "crazy people" run around with guns killing innocent people, why shouldn't I have one to protect my family in case they come after me? Well I think that ideas about our own personal safety being in jeopardy that have been planted in our brains are perpetuating this. Not entirely accurate ideas, either.

This is why I feel like our pro-gun culture is a big part of tragedies like these. The media would have us believe it a cold, cold world out there filled with bad people we need to protect ourselves from. Television shows, movies, video games and more have taught us that having weapons is desirable. It makes us tough, it makes us cool, it makes us invincible. If we truly want to bear arms simply for the protection of ourselves, or simply for our hunting and shooting hobbies that we enjoy so much, then we need to also be responsible and understand that not everyone is so inclined to feel that way, AND we need to understand that these are dangerous, deadly weapons, and should be treated as such. Do we leave a butcher knife on the table in full reach of our two year-old's? No, of course not, because we understand that two year-old's don't have the knowledge or ability to protect themselves from things that are dangerous, so we put it out of their reach to keep them safe. Why are we not doing the same thing with our guns? Why are we not keeping them out of reach and inaccessible to the young people in our home who don't have the knowledge, skill or intention to use them the way they were intended?

As a side point, how many of the people who have legally purchased handguns for their own protection have ever had to use them at any point in their lives? How many times have these "normal" folks been mugged, attacked, robbed or their homes broken into where the availability of their weapon has meant the difference between safety and injury, or in extreme cases, life and death? Can we compare this number to the amount of children who have accidentally shot themselves or someone else when they somehow were able to get a hold of it? Is it really worth it? I feel like we should be taking a look at the statistics of violent crime in our country, and understand that regardless of what the media would have us believe, we aren't likely to be attacked or put in a situation where we would need a firearm to save our lives. These stories are on the news because they aren't the norm; people don't get brutally murdered by psychopaths and criminals nearly as much as we have built up in our minds.

As I said in the beginning of this post, I agree that the government should in no way ever be able to remove our right to bear arms. (Interesting thought: a friend recently pointed out that if you actually read the original Bill of Rights, it states that our right to bear arms extends only to organized militia in our country. The Supreme Court has since extended that right to individuals in the case of self defense, but that was very recent.) However, if you can't be responsible with that right, and people are being injured or killed because you were careless, why should you still have that right? Now this is in no way speaking in general terms, and I don't expect an answer, because I'm not sure there is one. There simply isn't a way to legally ensure that gun owners are taking the proper precautions when it comes to stowing their weapons and keeping them out of the hands of others. But it does raise a serious question about the availability of guns to the "average Joe" who is irresponsible or simply doesn't understand proper gun safety. Hmmm. What if each person were required to take longer and more time-intensive gun safety courses before being able to obtain one?

And how about mental health evaluations? I wonder how helpful it would be to perform these evaluations before selling firearms to people, to ensure they don't have any history of severe mental illness that could impair their judgment. Note: This is also a huge issue when it comes to the culture of our country and it's lacking support and funding for public mental health programs. Up until recently, many large health insurance companies were not required to offer coverage for mental health care; which posed many problems for people who were looking for help but had no information or means to obtain it, (as was the case with Seung-Hui Cho, whose mother had reportedly sought out several different organizations to help with her son's mental illness, including her church). The nation-wide availability and access to mental health care services is severely inadequate, and that is a huge problem that I think should also be looked at (before we hastily start an emotionally-charged fight over the amount of ammunition we are able to purchase for our assault rifles).

People argue that a national tragedy is not the time to talk political reform. To that I say this: What better time is there? In the wake of a serious tragedy, what is wrong with starting to talk about and look for inconsistencies and inadequacies in our legal system and political culture, if not when we understand the serious consequences that they have incurred? I think that instead of saying "this is not the time to argue politics," I would amend the statement to be, "this is not the time to make hasty political decisions based on raw emotion and fear." But this is definitely the time to start having the conversation: What happened here? Why did it happen? What events in our history have led to this, and more importantly, how was it handled in the past and what were the results?

There are many more important things at play here than simply gun control. We need to evaluate the root of our issues here, and one of the most important I have found is that many of the people who are responsible for these tragedies needed help at some point and didn't get it. I don't agree with society placing blame on one source for these tragedies, such as the parents, gun control or violent video games. There are many things at play here and we can't point the finger at just one of them. We really have to look at the culture that these young people have grown up in and find out where we failed them to figure out why this keeps happening. Nobody is born bad or evil, nobody comes into this world with hatred and anger in their heart, somewhere along the line something went wrong, and I think it's important to look at patterns and find out what that was.

I am so very heartbroken about what happened in Connecticut. Having children close to that age myself has made it more real than I could ever imagine, and it makes me want to talk about what we can do to prevent this in the future. I am open to anyone and everyone's thoughts and opinions, no matter how different they are than mine. Thanks for reading.

Sources:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-1215-guns-20121215,0,5800421.story

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/connecticut-shooter-adam-lanza/story?id=17975673#.UMzjQW_Ad8E

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Deadliest-U-S-school-shootings-3454376.php

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/school_shootings_and_where_stu.html

And an opinion piece that really hit home for me:

http://blog.richmond.edu/media-culture-identity/2012/09/05/does-the-medias-coverage-of-violent-events-perpetuate-violence/

All right, maybe it's not necessarily a "revelation," but to me it was pretty monumental. I've been reading a lot of books and articles lately about choosing the right discipline method for the boys. I've adopted a new "attachment theory" persona, and it has started making me move away from the idea of punishment, and more toward the idea of feelings, character and acceptance. I know it sounds so YUPPIE of me (go figure), but I have been trying it for a few days now and so far I've been really happy with the results. Here's what's different:

In the past, when I ask my kids to do something and they flat out refuse, run away, make it a game, etc. I would usually get sterner and sterner with my voice, eventually threatening (and even using) a time out for not listening to me. The thing was, time outs didn't seem to be doing what I wanted. They got them to listen temporarily (sometimes), but it didn't make them think about changing the behavior for next time, even after we talked it out and hugged. (This is mostly for my four year old, as the younger one usually has no idea what's going on) So after reading stuff from A-Ha Parenting (http://www.positiveparentingsolutions.com/time-out/transform-your-time-outs-to-time-ins-guest-post-from-dr-laura-markham) and a blog about discipline methods school teachers use on Parenting.com, I decided to try something different. Instead of using a reward/punishment system, I have decided to focus on building character, and allowing the boys to make their own choices about what's right. For example:

Me: Danny, will you please pick up your coat off of the floor and bring it to your room?

Danny: Uh, I don't want to.

Me: Please? It is so easy to step on or trip over your coat when it's right in the middle of the staircase. We wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, would we?

Danny: I don't want to right now.

Me: Okay, I understand you don't want to. But let me ask, how would you feel if Daddy came down these stairs and slipped and fell because your coat was sitting here?

Danny: I would feel sad.

Me: Sad...hmm so you don't want Daddy to get hurt because of your coat?

Danny: Yeah.

Me: So don't you think it might be better to make a different choice about where you leave your coat?

Danny: Um, okay. [Brings coat into his room]

Me: [Gasp...Choke...Cry] That actually WORKED?!

WTF. Normally I would start to get really irritated with that much push back over something simple like putting your coat away. I might even say something rude like "I TOLD YOU TO MOVE IT SO JUST DO IT, OKAY?!" And make him feel like I am angry or frustrated with him over something so silly. Instead, we just talked about the consequences of his actions, how they affect other people, and how both he and the other person would feel if something bad happened.

I honestly still can't believe that it worked so well, and so easily. To test it, I tried it again at another time when he was doing a lot of talking back about stopping his video game to spend some quality time with Ashton and I.

Basically he said he wanted to keep playing, but I told him it had been long enough and it was time to do something fun together. He started getting really upset and arguing. I made the conscious decision to keep my cool. I acknowledged his feelings (evidently this is key in this type of "discipline") and told him I understood that he was having so much fun playing and didn't want to stop. But I told him that playing too long wasn't good for his eyes and I missed him and wanted to spend some fun time with him and Ashton. He still wasn't convinced, and he started getting even more upset. Pretty soon he was lying on the floor in tears, and I knew we may have an issue with being overtired, so I told him it was probably time to take our quiet time for the day and lay in our bed for awhile. He hated this even worse and when I asked him to close his door, he gripped it for dear life so it wouldn't close, still crying.

Again, this is where I would usually get really irritated and initiate a power struggle that usually got us both in tears. I recognized this as a cry for help instead of a power struggle, and decided that maybe he just needed a hug. I sat down and held him on his bedroom floor - lo and behold the tears came in earnest and he cried it out in my arms. After that we talked about his behavior and how it made both of us feel. I asked him if he felt better after crying and he said yes, and I asked him if he was ready to come play with Ashton and I, and he said yes, and that he wanted to be nice. (Oh my God...really?!) He suggested that we play Lego's, so he brought them upstairs and we all sat down on the floor and started playing.

Yes. That worked. No anger, no time outs, no yelling and no feelings of guilt for losing my temper. I successfully showed him that it's okay to have big feelings and that I would be there anyway. Holy crap. I still can't believe what a success it was in just the first few attempts.

I'm sure some of you are shaking your heads (if anyone reads this...um...hello? Is this thing on?) and rolling your eyes at what a yuppie load of crap this is. You're probably saying that I'm letting my kid walk all over me and take control of the situation. First let me just say this: Chill out. Second, you could be right, but I have decided that I feel better than I've ever felt about creating a strong attachment with my kids and encouraging them to acknowledge their own and others feelings while striving to be the best citizen they can be.

Who needs spanking and time outs when you can get the behavior you want by simply showing them LOVE? Riddle me that.