Grief and legislation in the aftermath of a crisis

 I have watched this past week with some interest and sadness as the fallout from a horrific Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown CT  has settled.  The act of this man are deplorable and there is no excuse for them.  To minimize them would be to deny the severity of the event.  That being said I would like to discuss the concern that comes as a result from these types of tragedies.

Many in the cyber world are clambering over themselves to be the most vocal, the most outrageous, or the most concerned.  Rhetoric from all political influences is streaming like the constant flow of a river.  The fractionalization of the populous is even more evident as we are prone to expose our private selves in the Facebook age. What is apparent is that the grief and bargaining from this loss will result in deeper restrictions and greater perceived safety as the government clamps down on what it believes to be the easy targets for change.

I do not want this to get off into the divisive world of gun control versus individual rights.  That is merely a distraction and a band-aid to the hurt that is being expressed. Everywhere in the news, on the internet, and around the table conversations are spinning with the language of grief.  And the most powerful language is that of bargaining.

Bargaining drives us to action.  It keeps us safe from the internal storm of emotion that can envelop us in a time of loss.  Even if we are not directly effected by the shooting, we have all lost a sense of safety from this mindless event.  Bargaining provides a sense of protection that calms the hurt but does not resolve the hurt.

Heard in conversation as "If they only ..." and "When this .... " or "Had he ... ", bargaining justifies and rationalizes the uncomprehendable and assists us in making sense of the new world we live in.  Those crying out for greater restrictions and confiscation of weapons are bargaining - "If we just get rid of these magazines!"  and "Had he not had access to a gun ... ".  These arguments justify and rationalize the horror and attempt to soothe the fact that we are all helpless and feel even more exposed in our sanctuaries when they are violated.

The gun rights advocates are also bargaining and acting out of a perceived and anticipated loss.  "When we all begin to carry there won't be anymore killings", and "If they would arm the school staff these would no longer be easy targets", are both statements of loss and a bargaining of the fear felt that liberties are about to be taken.

Both sides to the fight are acting to appease the fear and the perceived/anticipated loss that they are experiencing   "I'll be safer when all guns are taken from the world." and "I am safer because I have a gun with me at all times." act to inform the logical senses of something that is senseless.

Loss events come at us from three different directions.  There is the actual loss like that of the parents and families of those lost in this recent shooting.  This represents an unexpected loss, in contrast to the expected loss of a dying relative or aged grandparent.  The second loss and the two that are most vocal at this point are the perceived and anticipated loss event.  Vicariously we all are victims of this event due to the pervasive news coverage that we receive daily now days.  Relentless streaming of tragedy creates a sense of fear as if we were there.  Now, we are all faced with the fear that what if this was in my town, my child's school, my mall and shopping center?  When will this happen to me?!  Also bargaining, these statements spur up defenses and create adrenaline to fight off the perceived threat.  We can not help it.  It is hard wired into our neurological circuitry.  Some are predisposed to a withdrawal and play dead defense often referred to as freeze.  They seek safety and hole up, or yell for others to save them.  Others are more prone to activation and fight.  They cry for action.  The beat their sabers and the build higher walls.  All out of a perception that we are next.

The danger, and the real loss is when these bargaining become legislation and law.  The knee-jerk excess that bargaining produces often leads to rules, laws, and actions that in the end do little to solve the problem, but in the moment placate the hurt.  Even more dangerous is when the entrenched bargaining of complicated and unresolved grieving leads to excessive anger and vitriol in the fight for our cause.  Groups such as MADD, the Brady Campaign, and others that spin up out of a tragic loss are bastions for unresolved grief where prolonged bargaining feels like action and the adrenaline can become intoxicating and provides a sense of action.  The reality is, the action is only acting to buffer the unresolved hurt, or the transferred anger and blame for a senseless act.  Action taken while still in an emotionally charged state is without logic and reason.  It is void of the mental processing that allows for common sense decisions and rational behavior.  Only after a person has worked through the emotional pain that fuels much of the fight can the begin to reasonably consider options for change.

I remember in 1994 when the Brady bill was past and the corresponding assault weapons and magazine ban were past.  The event that has triggered the action from the Brady Campaign was a senseless act wherein President Reagan was nearly killed and James Brady was paralyzed on March 30, 1981.  The weapon used in this shooting was a  .22 cal. revolver yet the weapons bans that were enacted were on firearms that had little resemblance to this one.  This type of over-reaction and excessive bargaining is often the case in cases of unresolved and complicated grieving, and as a result of action that comes too fast in a loss event.  We become so consumed by the "If Only" and the "When this/that"  thinking that nothing seems to soothe the pain we feel -especially in cases of unexpected loss.    

In all loss events there will be bargaining, there will be the initial denial.  There will be the emotion.  Bargaining acts to soothe that emotional abyss.  Only when we are allowed to and assisted into the emotional quagmire surrounding the loss will we ever be able to come fully to terms with the loss, make rational decisions, and finally move forward from the loss and live a strong and healthy life.

My heart goes out to those families that at this Christmas season are grieving the senseless loss of loved ones.  My heart aches for those that are vicariously effected by this act and the others like it.  My head fears the fall-out that is about to come and what it can bring, if legislation limiting liberties is enacted and especially if it is not enacted.  The two camps of protesters at this time could become an even greater protest when the legislative dust settles from this.

When we are moved to serious action in the face of loss and bargaining, we are potentially setting up the dominoes for  greater loss in the future.  It is vital that before we take any action in the face of a loss, be that a national loss or the losses in our own life, that we have resolved our hurt and emotional pain before establishing any new and lasting policy or law.  We must wait for the rational to gain hold and the emotional to heal.  Only then are we able to create logical and meaningful change, if anything at all even needs to be done.

Loss has been and always will be part of our lives.  Senseless acts of violence occurred long before there were guns.  Even in countries where guns are banned, killings of even greater magnitude occur on a daily basis around this globe.  The greatest loss is when we do not allow for healing with ourselves to occur and we are driven by the hurt, pain, hear, and bargaining to appease the emotions and end up losing the peace and resolution that can come when we have effectively and completely grieved. Sometimes the best action is to adhere to this phrase, "Don't just do something - STAND THERE."  We can not act until we have fully taken it in and completely resolved our issues with the loss event.