" some gun control, less media coverage"

David Brooks calls for some gun control, less media coverage in wake of Sandy Hook shooting 

The mass-shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which left 20 children and six adults dead, is an important opportunity to reconsider the role of both the media and gun control policy, New York Times columnist David Brooks argued on Friday.

Brooks, speaking on PBS’s “NewsHour,” suggested that people with certain mental health conditions should be denied access to guns, before urging the media not to inadvertently glorify the suspected shooter, 20-year-old Adam Lanza.

“I think it would be helpful in the media if we did not publicize these people, especially if they have committed suicide,” he said. “Don’t put them on the cover of magazines. Don’t put their faces on TV. Don’t release their names. I somehow think that would diminish some of the perverse heroism of them.”

(David Brooks is a political and cultural commentator who writes for The New York Times. He worked as an editorial writer and film reviewer for the Washington Times; a reporter and later op-ed editor .)

As awkward as I feel agreeing with a Columnist for the New York Times, I can't help aggreeing with Mr. Brooks, at least in part.

Well .. let me see:  Disallowing firearms ownership to people with "certain mental health conditions"?   Gee, the last time I bought a firearm, I had to answer "NO" to the question about "Are You A Loony?"  (nb: not a direct quote .. but that was the crux of the question.)  Apparently the Federal government already has that "Gun Nut Loophole" firmly covered.

The part about not publicizing the PERSON?  Yeah, I can support that.  Brooks argues that is important "...especially if they have committed suicide".   That's okay; God forbid we should embarrass them in public, but since they're already dead ... oh, wait.  The don't care.  Hmmm .. I guess I don't really understand the distinction.

I think am pretty sure that Brooks is suggesting that we shouldn't "glorify" the madmen.  In my mind, that concept is A Good Idea whether they commit suicide or not.  But how about if they are killed by a crazed saloon killer while being transferred from their jail cell ... is that okay?  That's what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald ... and so far (knock on wood) that hasn't led to the further assassination of American presidents; I think (let me do the math: 2012 minus 1963...) 49 years of "No Wanna-Be's" suggests that it's okay to publish the assassin's name if he's killed by a crazed saloon killer.

So .. I guess he's saying that if they're gone, we ought to just fagettaboutit.  If they're still alive, of course we'll have the media reporting on their  capture, trial, sentence, yadda yadda yadda.  (Sorry; all I know about how New Yorkers talk is what I read in The Times.)   So if we try to keep their names out of the papers, it would constitute an infringement on The First Amendment.  Not on the madman's rights but the Fourth Estate.

Perhaps I'm not totally sold on the DETAILS, but I'm pretty sure I agree on one thing:

... we're never going to 'understand' these Evil Doers.  Maybe it doesn't require that we 'understand' them.  So why do we need to know more about them except that some asshole shot up some good people?

Maybe there are other assholes out there, who see the media frenzy and think:

 "Hey, I'm a worthless asshole; but if I go shoot up some good people then people will get to know my name and I'll be famous.  People will remember my name!  Gee, it worked for Lee Harvey Oswald and Mark David Chapman and ... well, who knows?  And if I blow off my freakin' head when I'm done, people will know that at heart I'm really a Sensitive guy!   But I sure don't want to get shot by some cop like Charles Whitman was done in at the Texas Tower in '66.   On the other hand, that guy who shot up Luby's Restaurant in Texas and then (you guessed it) shot himself in the head?  Almost nobody remembers his name, 'cause it was only mentioned once and then quickly forgotten."

So okay, I think it's a good idea; let's all agree to forget these worthless assholes immediately.  Deny them the fruits of their madness, as intangible and illogical as they may seem.  Let's wipe their names off the face of the earth, and insure that they will achieve none of the goals of which they dreamed.  It's the least we can do, and perhaps it's the most we can do.  Nothing will be sufficient, of course, to express our contempt for their acts.

 Nothing

We won't forget the people they killed. 

But we will know one thing for sure.  We'll know that they died for NOTHING! 

To my mind, that's the most shameful, the most ignominious, the most insulting end of all.   To die for NOTHING!   If I'm murdered, I don't want the asshole to say "nothing personal".  At least, I would want to know that I'm dying for some reason which is more important than the pitiful self-aggrandizement of some loony-bin asshole. 

I hate it that all of those children, and their heroic teachers and principle, died at Sandy Hook.  But that they died for nothing?  That's the most despicable act of all.