Response from Congressman Olson

[cubbyjg]

Below is the response I received from Congressman Olson regarding my letter to him. I'm sure it's a generic response but just thought I would share.

January 7, 2013

Dear Jason:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the recent tragedy in Newtown, CT, and your thoughts on additional gun control laws. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.

As a father of two school-aged children, I too am shocked and overcome by the senseless act of violence at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It is incomprehensible to me why or how anyone would target innocent children. My prayers are with all of the victims and their families.

First, I do not support additional gun control laws, I believe that we should strictly enforce what is currently in place. The most important thing we can do as a nation is to seriously begin to address the mental health issues facing our nation. We need to educate people on ways to better identify those who may potentially pose a risk to others. In the Houston area, the largest mental health facility is the Harris County jail. That's wrong. The criminal justice system is not the proper place to treat the mentally ill.

We also need to honestly look at the change in our society over recent years. Firearms have always been present in our society - what's changed is our society. Decades ago there were fewer gun laws and certainly fewer bizarre, horrible mass killings, but over time our culture has changed. It increasingly glorifies violence and death, and exposes our children to violent images and themes through television and other electronic media. When violent messages are repeatedly thrust upon children, it clearly can have an impact. We must address the dismantling of our social fabric. The lack of respect for life and the culture of violence that permeate our society can and must be addressed – not by laws - but by leadership and social pressure.

The Newtown tragedy must focus our national efforts to better protect and nurture our children. I will work closely with my colleagues to determine the best solutions to protect our children and our communities.
Again, thank you for your interest in this important issue. I appreciate your input and I'm honored to represent you in Congress. For more information on constituent services, current legislation, and to sign up for my E-newsletter, please visit my website at http://www.olson.house.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Very respectfully,
Pete Olson
Member of Congress

[Kythas]

Good response.

[GWE Chally]

Even if that is some sort of form letter, it is a very good one!

I agree with that 100%

[Steve133]

Nice to know that he has the right idea, even if that is explained in a generic, soundbyte-friendly form letter. I don't agree with him on everything, but I still voted for him in every election between his first run and the time I moved out of his district (he was the closest match to my own political ideologies - besides, we went to the same college, so there's some school pride too, I guess). Glad to be proven right in my assumption that he was one of the good guys.

[jmra]

Good response.

[baldeagle]

I would suggest to the Congressman that all TV shows, movies and video games should have ratings. Violence of any kind, sexual behavior of any kind (kissing passionately, for example) and foul language of any kind should get an R rating, and extreme violence, simulated sexual acts and excessive foul language should get an X rating. It would be up to the parents to police their own children, but at least the rating system would assist them in making judgment calls about what their children should be allowed to watch.

The problem with this suggestion would be that almost every TV show, every movie and every video game would end up being rated X, and there would be powerful resistance to such a suggestion. However, perhaps an X across the screen before EVERY show would wake some people up to what's going on in "entertainment".

[SQLGeek]

I wrote him also and received the same response.

[talltex]

I agree in large part with Congressman Olson's response, but would make just a few observations:

I think he is spot on regarding the need for better solutions in dealing with mental illness. The people who do these horrific acts are clearly unstable, and in every one of these mass shootings, their intent is not to kill a bunch of innocent people and GET AWAY...they go into it with the intent that they will NOT survive, and no amount of legislation will affect someone with that mindset. The only way to stop that, is to recognize the problem and intervene "before the fact". That said, I have serious doubts that it can be accomplished...all it takes is for one unbalanced individual out of a large population to slip thru the cracks. Despite all the publicity such acts receive, statistically they are still exceedingly rare compared to all the other innocent victims killed EVERY day by "ordinary" criminals...at least as many every day, as in any of the mass shootings.

I agree also that what has changed is societal values to some degree, and his statement that decades ago, there were less stringent gun laws and yet far fewer mass killings is accurate. However, I'm not convinced by the oft repeated theory that all our societal breakdown is due to violence on TV, movies and other electronic media. I was born in 1956 and grew up in the 60's & 70's. Most of the movies we went to see in the 60's were "war movies" or "westerns", and most of the popular TV shows were also. I watched Chuck Connors, Steve McQueen, James Arness, Richard Boone shoot people every week as well as Combat, 12'Oclock High, Rat Patrol, etc...and it was always the "good guys" that won. Most movies today still have the good guys winning over the evil forces...about the only difference is the graphic detail. I truly believe that the biggest change has come not from that type of influence, but from the change in the way a large percentage of our children are raised. Many kids , even from affluent families, grow up with almost no parental supervision and little real contact. They spend most of their formative years in day care until they reach school age and then in school followed by "after school day care". It seems most of the "mass shooters" come from a middle to upper-middle class background, and have demonstrated some behavioral issues...usually characterized as "loner, social outcast, withdrawn, bullied etc... Then we have a large group that grow up in terrible conditions in poor inner city areas, with maybe one parent or relative, often third generation welfare recipients, with no role models other than drug dealers and gang bangers. Everything in their culture (rap lyrics, clothing styles, baby daddies, language, attitudes and so on) is designed to show their contempt for what most of our generation considers "good values". Not surprisingly, a disproportionate number of them wind up committing violent crimes. They are the ones who wind up shooting someone while robbing a convenience store for $23.00, a mugging, or carjacking..."ordinary thugs". I don't know if there is a solution to those problems, but I don't think having the government "nurture" our kids is it.

As for focusing our national efforts to better protect and nurture our children, if they are serious about the "protection" part of the equation, they need to "harden the target". If there has been one obvious pattern to all the mass shootings, it is that they occur overwhelmingly in gun-free zones. The perpetrators may not be mentally stable, but they certainly seem to be capable of figuring out where they can do the most damage before being met with resistance. Passing "feel good" gun legislation will have zero effect on the actual problem. Either cowboy up and put police officers in each school, or get serious about utilizing REAL security measures to control access to the facility.