Posted on 12/16/2012 5:53:52 AM PST by Kaslin
December 16, 2012
When 20 kindergartners and first-graders and six adults are senselessly slaughtered at a small town elementary school by a heavily armed lunatic, it’s normal to want to do something — anything — to help make certain such a horrific event never happens again.
But “never again” has proven a very difficult, if not impossible, standard to achieve.
Pass any number of new laws — the problem will remain that Adam Lanza, and other killers like him, don’t obey such laws.
We might force a background check or establish a more thorough one before a person may buy a gun. But Lanza had no criminal record; he likely would have been approved. In fact, even if Adam had a criminal record or other loud, flashing warning signs, it would not have altered this terrible outcome, since he reportedly stole these guns from his mother — before fatally shooting her in the face as the morning’s start of his rampage.
I figure the shooter’s mother, Nancy Lanza, would have passed a background check.
Some will call for greater regulation of the psychiatrists and psychologists who treat the mentally ill, perhaps, or for a loss of gun rights for people suffering from some forms of mental disorder. Still, in this case, such heightened regulations or restrictions would have been circumvented as previously noted. Moreover, a system of restraints on those who seek mental help would almost surely reduce the likelihood that those suffering such ailments seek help.
Of course, most people suffering mental illness do not shoot anyone, much less open fire on classrooms of young school children. It’s not difficult to see how any new clampdown on mental health patients could be seriously counterproductive in preventing future mass shootings.
A number of pundits argue we can fine-tune the weaponry used by the madmen who unleash their madness upon others. Some are calling for a new “assault weapons” ban and President Obama hinted at such a policy response, saying in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, “we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”
But enacting new rules designed to force killers to re-load more often, to fire less deadly bullets or to use machetes or poison or bombs instead of bullets, will hardly vanquish evil from our future reality. Nor would outlawing all private gun ownership, which presents its own unacceptable dangers.
There is little governments can do to prevent violence of this sort. It is impossible to predict. SWAT teams cannot be everywhere. Requiring metal detectors and heavy police presence at every kindergarten or grammar school in the land not only seems out of place in a free society, it also has little prospect of providing perfect protection from such extraordinary evil.
The fact is that so-called “gun violence” is dropping. This is no statistical burp, but a long-term trend of 25 years. If America is a “violent society,” it is less so today than in years past. If repealing the assault weapons ban has been a mistake, the numbers don’t show it. We see the carnage in living color on the TV, but the people not attacked receive no fanfare at all.
Too often in the wake of a horrific event, our government acts in the passion of the moment, rather than letting emotions calm and legislating on the basis of all relevant data. Politicians hate to let a good crisis go to waste.
So, expect the Connecticut mass shooting to generate politicians to act, even though there is little if anything they can do — falling all over themselves where they have no wisdom to impart and no role to play.
Meanwhile, our political leaders ignore a far less sensational crisis — one they have created and, indeed, exacerbated exponentially.
The United States of America is $16,378,189,870,912 in debt. By the time you read this, we’ll have piled up millions more.
Much debt is of recent vintage. When George W. Bush became president in 2000, the national red ink totaled $5.7 trillion. In eight years, Dubya nearly doubled it to $10.6 trillion. Since his 2008 election, President Obama has far outpaced Bush, sinking us another $5.3 trillion in debt in just half Bush’s time.
And, by continuing to run yearly deficits of over $1 trillion, we’re digging the hole deeper at top speed.
For all the hoopla over draconian cuts, forced at the so-called fiscal cliff, those somewhat slippery savings would at best amount to about 10 percent of our yearly deficit, leaving us spending 9/10ths of a trillion dollars we don’t have.
In the “other cuts” department, the Obama Administration had been supporting paltry reductions to federal Medicaid spending of $17.6 billion over ten years (that’s less than $2 billion a year), but just flipped its position. Why? State governors are deciding if they can afford to take part in Obamacare’s massive Medicaid expansion.
Not content to spend recklessly alone, the Feds pick up the entire tab of new Medicare recipients’ first three years. But once states are hooked on the money, Washington pays 90 percent and the states pay 10.
States are wondering how they’ll come up with that additional 10 percent — seven governors have already declined to join in the spending program. No one in Washington has given a second thought to paying the 90 percent.
Politicians cannot save us from every evil or relieve all our pain and suffering. They shouldn’t try. Instead, let us care for each other, emotionally and spiritually. And let politicians concentrate on solving the biggest problems they themselves have created. (references)
Keep up the good posting Kaslin.
Armed police officer (or equivalent) in every school. About $400/yr per student or 3% to 4% of total spending per student.
Maybe they start by recognizing the value of children—and start PROTECTING them; rather than locking them in a cage to be shot.
What if we had a coodinated attack by several Jihadis? At a few schools in the same jurisdiction?
The required changes to the “mental health system” to convert into a “crazed nut control system” are massive, and massively expensive.
The required changes of our thinking, feeling, and acting are even more massive, so much so as to be almost beyond comprehension.
A country that would elect a President on the say-so of Sandra Fluke is not going to start identifying and inhibiting loonies. Not in a million years.
Thanks
The Mother should have know her son was a threat-—but she paid the price for her ignorance—she should have gotten rid of all guns. Society should have known he was a ticking timebomb—his doctors should have known, his teachers should have spotted him and had him placed in a Mental Hospital. This man was a danger to society and himself! Society needs new mental hospitals! These nuts will continue to kill until we provide them with the help they need. This was done once long ago. ALSO—violent video games must be blamed in part—for de-sensitizing people to a point they could kill the innocent without flinching. So too our violent films and Tv shows. We need a new Hays Committee to limit the violence—it is a pornography of violence that will turn the weak minded into killers.
Unfortunately it is also “normal” in this degraded age to try as hard as possible to avoid any PERSONAL responsibility for “making sure etc...”. So we pass another law...for government to implement.
They admit that the doors must be locked against someone yet no one was standing guard.
Yes and society pays the price for the lack of vigilence (if there was a lack of vigilence). In addition would you want to be subjected to commitment on someone’s say so? Seems like she was a pretty good mom (homeschooled her kid, took him the the gun range and taught him to shoot). Maybe she thought the time on the range would help him work out his issues. Adam Lanza never had any run ins with the law. He was described as very smart but possibly with autism (not a reason to exclude ownership of guns??). Assuming that this had not happened, would you have been onboard with him getting a gun permit when he reached 21? What would have stopped you from allowing him to get one?
I think the solution is to put the mental defectives back into the asylums. The asylums were emptied out in the 1970’s because the states didn’t want to pay the price of maintaining them and the ACLU had a natural constituency in the patients. This would solve a majority of the crime problems. They can’t acquire guns if they are locked up.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. However, don't you think calling for banning of 'violent films and TV shows' is quite similar in tone and effect to the Liberals calling for the banning of guns?
After all, and the reason I say in tone and effect, the only thing dissimilar is the item to be banned. Like guns, where the VAST majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens who do not commit crimes involving weapons, people who watch 'violent' films and play video games are, when you look at the VAST majority, law abiding citizens who do not pick up a gun and think they are James Bond or some Navy SEAL in some video game. The vast majority, whether you are talking guns or video games, semi-autos or rental DVDs, do not commit crimes. Only a small fraction of a fraction do.
Furthermore, you said that the violence in media turns 'the weak minded into killers.' That is also something that the Liberal Left and the media are saying, right now, about gun violence. That guns enable people to kill efficiently and effectively. Which is why they are comparing this shooting at a school with the stabbings in China, and they are saying that this guy basically killed everyone he shot at apart from one teacher who survived, while in China some mad man attacked 22 kids with a knife, and so far none has died. Which, according to the talking heads in media, shows that guns enable the inept to be able to kill many where, in other circumstances, they may have only wounded. (Prediction: watch and see how the Chinese school stabbings will be compared to the CT school shootings, and used to 'prove' guns are 'bad').
Anyways, don't you think your logic is the same one that is used by the Left/media to go against firearms? Where the actions of a few is used as justification to infringe on the rights of the many (and by many I mean by an overwhelming majority).
In both cases, the vast majority of people who own guns, listen to music, play video games, watch movies, wear trench-coats, do not go into a school and start shooting people. Only a small fraction do so. Banning guns/movies/video games as a way of stopping violence is as likely to stop violence as banning trench coats would.
Look at how well making homicide illegal has worked out. Laws are a joke in this country. We've got laws against illegal immigration. Now, we're rewarding those who break them.
Hey just keep people away from guns and cars if they are taking a med that causes violent outbursts or rage or urges to commit suicide. Such drugs are usually present in mass killings.
“But enacting new rules designed to force killers to re-load more often, to fire less deadly bullets or to use machetes or poison or bombs instead of bullets, will hardly vanquish evil from our future reality.”
Progressives/relativists don’t see the difference in good and evil, so they can’t relate to this statement.
Remember what the Soviets did with laws like that. The Soviet psychiatric care system became a parallel track for incarceration and defamation of dissidents.
Given the low information, dumbed-down, citizenry who is capable of reelecting a certifiable Marxist like Zer0, we will have people turning their dogs for psychiatric examination. Of course the psychiatric community would welcome this with open arms. More patients mean more money for them and the hell if someone is really a nut.
You have brought forth a very thoughtful post. It is not the irritating knee-jerk garbage that comes from the dumb-down media out there banging up society with their wrecking cars.
I doubt our current population of citizen arm-chair psychiatrists would not hesitate in turning in anyone for anything. They showed their discriminatory acuteness when they reelected Zer0. What other kind of insanity are they capable of? Righting off the Constitution for their perceived feeling of safety?
I would take a stronger look at no fault divorce. There are too many children (and dogs) who need strong families with a man and a woman giving them their support. Sorry, gay couples don’t cut it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.