TIME's POTY

Time Magazine announced its person of the year as President Barack Obama.  I don't have the gut level reaction of misplaced disgust that most Republicans have, nor do I have the smug pride that most Democrats have about this decision.  I do think there were worthier candidates.  But the "award" goes to the person who has had the most influence on the year, for better or for ill.

That said, here's my nomination: The Lone Gunman.

A Gallup poll shows that 42% of Americans either personally own a gun or have a family member who owns a gun.  But it's not the percentage of gun-owners who have had the influence, but the outspoken gun owners and a handful of people who have used weapons in mass shootings.  Depending on your definition of "mass shootings" there were 14 shootings this year across the country that involved multiple victims.  Here's a good Washington Post article showing the breakdown.

These tragic shootings have raised the gun control debate to a fever pitch, as a recent AP poll shows that the mass shootings that occurred throughout the year edged out election news ( poll ). Calls for gun control reform have almost out-shouted the debate over the fiscal cliff. 

There have also been a huge increase in the number of gun sales over the past month. This article explains how gun sales trend upward, driven by fears of personal safety and/or the fear that recent shootings will spur gun restrictions.

Choosing the Lone Gunman (James Holmes, Adam Lanza, et al.) as Person of the Year in no way intends to celebrate these people.  In fact, many feel that the media coverage these individuals receive only fuels the problem - makes celebrities of people who should not be celebrated.  I suppose it's only natural for people to try to understand these people in order to diagnose their motives, but it's a lost cause.  We will never truly understand what drives people to do these monstrous acts.

There was a feeling after the Columbine massacre in 1999 that we'd reached a tipping point involving guns and gun control; that this must never happen again.  But then others followed.  Virginia Tech.  Fort Hood.  And for all the rhetoric over gun control and gun rights, there is no simple answer.  Restrictions are likely to not be effective and inaction shows weakness and unconcern.  Whatever the outcome (if any), it is difficult to reflect on this year without tragedies like Aurora and Newtown coming to the forefront.  The questions we pose and the answers we want - "Why does this happen?" "What is it in our society that drives people to do this?" "Could this have been prevented with more guns?" - will not come easily.  It reminds me of the quote by French Essayist Joseph Joubert: "Better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it."