Skip to comments.Newtown, Connecticut: There Is No "Why"
Posted on 12/18/2012 4:42:11 AM PST by servo1969
The first I heard of the horrific shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton was from the security guard at the gate returning to my home in Naples. He was in shock, and you could see that he had been crying.
I headed to my condo and turned on the TV and still have trouble believing what I saw --- what had happened.
By now all of us even those who are glued to soap operas and entertainment news shows 24/7 know the story, so theres no need to go over the hideous details again. There is, though, plenty to address on the issue.
Heres the headline of the Newton story in this mornings Naples Daily News:
Investigators, Newtown, world still struggle with 'Why?' gunman shot 26 people
Why? There is no why. Clearly these were the actions of a mentally and morally depraved and deranged 20-year-old male. People this profoundly mentally ill dont deal in whys. They act compulsively and without reason. They have always been with us, and always will be. One thing is for sure you do not structure society or the rules that society lives by with your focus on the madman. None of us (I hope) would want to live in a society governed by rules that completely negate the possibility of harm ever befalling us, our families, or our friends at the hands of a deranged monster. If youre looking for that degree of security, your perfect place would be a maximum security prison cell.
Still --- since the cable channels have seen fit to provide us with pretty much three days hours of wall-to-wall coverage of the Newton shootings, with endless repetitions of the why question, maybe I could give you a few rabbit trails to scamper down.
1. Lets look into our celebrity culture, particularly as its designed for and aimed at children. I dont spend a lot of time watching this type of TV but it seems that a preponderance of these shows center around young people who become famous .. usually by being in a rock band, a singing star, a cool guitar player, a dancer or an actor. Its all about becoming famous. Get just a bit older and you have American Idol. It seems that every childs goal in life should be to have everyone know your name to be a celebrity. Its not enough to have a nice Collie named Lassie or a horse named Flicka to hang aroiund with. You must have fame, and without fame you are a failure. The question, then, is just how far you will go to make sure that everyone knows your name. Whatever your path to fame, you are NOT going to seek that fame by murdering 26 people and then killing yourself unless you are severely mentally ill.
2. Then theres this phony self-esteem movement. For quite some time now our children have been told how wonderful they are even those clearly not wonderful. Self-esteem is not a gift. It is not given you. It is earned by actions, moral behavior and achievement. Perhaps, as a young person, if you know in hour heart and mind that you are not all that wonderful that you have not earned all of this self-esteem the world tells you that you are entitled to you might seek a way to show that you really do count. But, you are not going to do this by murdering 26 people and then killing yourself unless you are severely mentally ill.
The why here is mental illness. The guns were the how.
And so here we are smack in the middle of a debate frenzy over gun control --- and who didnt know this was where this tragedy was going to go as soon as the news started breaking.
Where did we get the first comments on gun control after the shootings? From liberals. From Democrats. You had New York Congressman Jerold Nadler, a Democrat. Then there was Michael Moore an unidentifiable species. Obama hinted at the need for more gun control legislation in his otherwise exemplary statement on Friday afternoon. But lets remember Rahms Law: Never let a serious crisis go to waste. It became clear very quickly that the left was going to manipulate the nations horror and sadness into a quick acceptance of additional laws restricting the law-abiding citizens right to own a firearm.
Then oddly enough as soon as conservatives and Republicans stepped forward to comment on the shootings; suggesting, for instance, that one teacher or administrator with access to a firearm might have saved lives; the left immediately erupted into accusations that the Republicans were politicizing this horrible tragedy. Jerold Nadler, Chuck Schumer, Michael Moore --- they werent politicizing. Only conservatives were doing that. Yeah --- right.
Have you ever stopped to give any thought as to just why its liberals and Democrats who argue so strongly for gun control and against our Second Amendment rights? Clearly the idea that a person has the right to own a gun for self defense is one more often held by those on the right than the left, and the idea that gun ownership ought to be severely restricted, or even banned, finds its home on the left. Now heres where the why question that needs to be asked. And yes, I have a theory.
There is a basic divide between liberal and conservative thought. Conservatives largely believe in individual responsibility; whether its the responsibility for raising and educating your own children, or the responsibility of providing for your own basic needs, including security and the security of your family. Liberals, on the other hand, are always all-to-eager to hand those responsibilities off to the government. I cant feed my children, wheres my WIC money? I cant feed myself, wheres my food stamps? I cant pay my rent, wheres my Section 8 check? I cant heat my home, wheres my heating assistance check? I cant educate my own child, wheres that government school bus? I cant find a job, wheres my unemployment check?
Owning a gun for self-defense, then, is seen by many as a basic conservative approach to the problem of personal security. Liberals love to tell us that your protection from criminals is a job that should be left to the police. Conservatives respond by saying When seconds count, the police are only five minutes away.
When a knowledgeable conservative tells a liberal that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled has ruled that the police have no duty to protect they roll their eyes and will flat-out tell you that you dont know what youre talking about. Refer them to a 7-2 Supreme Court decision in June of 2005, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278. You can Google this phrase, supreme court rules police have no duty to defend, to come up with much more information on the states duty to protect. You will learn that the police have a duty to investigate and make an arrest if a suspect is located, but not to be there to protect you against the criminal with a gun --- even if they know who that criminal is and that he has threatened you. When you have shared this knowledge with a liberal their usual response will be to call you a right-wing gun nut. Yeah I know, an irrational reaction to be sure. But remember, were dealing with liberals here.
It is clear then the Supreme Court has told us as much that the primary responsibility for your own safety and the protection of your life and the lives of your family is yours. Some see fit to recognize that responsibility by avoiding areas and cities with dangerous levels of crime. Some make a conscious decision to seek additional security in their living arrangements by choosing gated communities or secure high-rises. Others have firearms in their homes and obtain permits to carry concealed weapons where allowed in public.
There is no downplaying the tragedy of Newton, Connecticut. But on that very same day guns were used in self-defense perhaps a thousand times across America. No 24/7 reports of defensive gun uses, however.
Liberals simply do not want to be educated on how often citizens use firearms for self-defense. They need to be, however, and heres a start. The Cato Institute has published a book titled: Tough Targets, When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens. You can download book by clicking on the link.
You can also click here for The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock, an effort by Gary Cleck, PhD, an expert on the issue of the uses of privately owned weapons for self defense. In this article you will find the following excerpt:
A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.
The debate on this one is going to be furious. Obama has been making it clear for quite some time that part of his fundamental transformation of America is to go after our guns. This shooting has given him more ammunition than he will probably need. If you speak out against additional laws the right-wing gun nut label will come out, as it will if you ask why a weapon should be classified as an assault weapon simply because theres a thumb-hole in the stock. You will be derided if you ask someone to define a non-assault weapon.
The proggies will cite a statistic that only a small number of people are killed by a private citizen with a gun in an act of self defense in any given year. If you respond by telling them that in the vast majority of cases where a gun is used for self defense the trigger is never pulled --- that the mere showing of the gun is enough to avert the attack --- once again you will be on the receiving end of the right-wing gun nut appellation.
Perhaps we could try to popularize the term left-wing government nut to identify liberals who have never seen a government program they didnt swoon over. Rational conservatives and libertarians, however, recognize that there is an appropriate role for government in our society and lives. Liberals, however, generally wont acknowledge that such a role exists for the private ownership of guns.
While the media is focusing on the issue of gun control as a result of the Newtown shooting, why are we reading so little about the role a private citizen with a concealed weapons permit and a gun played in that mall shooting in Portland, Oregon a few days ago? Did you wonder why only two people were killed before the gunman took his own life? Only two? Theres a story out there that the shooter was confronted by the private citizen with his own gun. At that point the shooter put his gun to his head and pulled the trigger. Heres that story. Share it with a liberal friend, Im sure theyll be interested. Perhaps you might like to spend a few moments wondering why you heard this for the first time right here. Could it be that the story of a private citizen stopping a potential massacre with his own legally-carried gun is one that just does not fit the current media narrative? Oh and do you know how many school shootings have been stopped in the last 20 years by a private citizen with a gun? Maybe you might want to look that up. The mainstream media damned sure isnt going to do that for you.
More laws? Really? Imagine the impact on our liberties if we were to enact laws that would absolutely protect us from every possible evil that could be visited on humanity by a psychopath. The problem here is that there is no shortage of people who would be at all concerned with the loss of those liberties. Its security they want, not liberty, and whatever the cost of that security, its a price theyre willing to pay. If a lunatic wants to kill a large number of people he will find a way. Guns, this time. Knifings in a Chinese school just this past week.
I just spent the weekend with my three and one-half year old granddaughter. Watching her with her Gwanny and seeing the joy in her life my heart just ached for the parents in Newton who lost their children last Friday. I pray that God will somehow heal their wounds in time, but this Christmas is going to be pure torture for them.
The proper response to this tragedy is to try to improve our ability to identify people with the mental depravity necessary to commit such an act and to intervene beforehand. We dont have a case of a nut-job buying guns here. Those guns were legally purchased by his mother and stolen by the depraved shooter.
Oh .. one more thing. You will notice that I never once mentioned the shooters name here. Im not going to be one of those who gives him the notoriety and fame he sought through his heinous action. I wish others would follow suit.
When I see a gun-free sign this is what I read: Dear homicidal maniac, There is no one in this facility who can oppose you with any real force. You have approximately ten minutes to kill as many people as you are able. Signed, The Management.
I talked with a man the other day and he said Well, you cant have security guards in every school. I said Guards? You dont need to employ guards. Whats wrong with using all the other people in the school? The teachers, principals, vice-principals, janitors, lunch ladies, office workers, councilors, and others? These are grown men and women. They don't have to be armed but they should be allowed to be if they volunteer. If they choose to get a CCW they should be allowed to pack. There should be rules and guidelines in schools for carrying on the job not laws prohibiting it!
It seems so many people want to live in The Shire where wolves have been outlawed. No wolves here, Thank you. Why, I'm sure I wouldnt even know how to repel a wolf attack nor do I wish to. And anyway, we have people to do that if it ever comes up. Good morning!
But wolves do not disappear just because people pass a law making it illegal to be a wolf. And then, one day, a wolf is sniffing at your door
and the people with the wolf repellant are at least 10 minutes away.
The entire incident was a false flag. Come on Neal start using your brain.
(His name was Herostratus, if you're interested. The historians made sure that he got exactly what he wanted: everlasting fame.)
“...a gun free zone is a murder zone...”
Post of the day!! And I reiterate - Obama doesn’t have to worry about his daughters- they go to school with armed protection. I don’t see why his daughters are “more Special” than all of our children. If they have protection, ours should have it too!
I was discussing this over the week end with my husband and proposed a solution much like yours - teachers who have volunteered to be specifically licensed to be able to protect the children with a stun gun or firepower if necessary.
***They act compulsively and without reason.***
My EX-Brother-in-law’s oldest son by a previous marriage was this way.
My sister got him into a hospital for observation and after four weeks they could not fine anything wrong with him. She talked them into keeping him a few more weeks, and during that time something set him off and they found how he really was.
***was burned down by a fellow simply because he wanted to be famous.****
Reminds me of the story of Phillip of Macedon. If you can not be famous, you kill the man who is famous and your name will be permanently attached to his.
The potential for erratic behvior lies dormant in each and every one of us. Who can say what event may trigger an over the top response? Most of us are “normal” “rational” human beings. Some slip into that irrational category for whatever reason, some act, some don’t. It is a societal coundrum that connot be solved by the simple expedient of passing another gun law. It is a problem that will exist as long as there are human beings.
***Some slip into that irrational category for whatever reason, some act, some dont***
In the old days, such people often hanged themselves at home. Now they want to become famous before they kill themselves.