The unbalanced killers that attack schools are striking at society, not children. The children are their way of hurting us the most and taking away innocence and causing the most pain. One of the reasons some of the killers pick school zones is they know guns are not allowed there and they have the highest chance to hurt innocent people. I have heard arguments for putting security details (ex military, retired police or servicemen) at schools the same way we have crossing guards in order to get the children there safely. I’m not totally against armed security, but I hate to think we are at the point where kids need to have a security force to be safe 24/7. I suppose knowing an armed security detail was there might stop someone if they were thinking rationally, but likely it would just be the first person hit in the initial wave of violence. It seems that it would be a false sense of security, and might make things worse by having a shootout mentality. Personally? I think we are still putting the cart before the horse with some of us thinking we should change the Constitution and hoping that gun laws will keep guns out of the hands of people willing to mow down classrooms. Those willing to kill people won’t care or listen to any gun law and will find ways of creating damage. It is, I believe, naive to think they will obey any law if they are going to commit murder. Sure, the gun laws sound simple and they seem rational, right? “Get rid of guns and the crimes committed with them will stop” … 1+1=2, no? But it doesn’t work that way. It’s an emotional desire for quick action without truly understanding what is happening. A rational solution to irrational people committing irrational acts.
Spree killers and mass murderers are going to commit a crime and guns are one of many available tools. Getting rid of that tool (even if you could) won’t stop a committed criminal from doing what he sets out to do. The largest loss of life in a school attack was with a bomb and happened 100 years ago. Tim McVeigh and Oklahoma showed us that lunatics with a cause will look for the way to make the most violent statement. They used fertilizer, kerosene, etc. and got plans off the internet. While we won’t sleep easier at night accepting this, we need to: we cannot easily legislate away violence. Period.
We need to target who shouldn’t have guns, which households should not have guns in them, and get mental health help for those who need it. We need to segregate dangerous individuals from the rest of society, especially kids. Doing anything short of that is just blowing smoke. As long as we want to be PC and not label people and not commit people to state hospitals until they are guilty of something, then we will keep having people spiral out of control until they commit crimes.
It’s not rocket science.
Continuing to allow dangerous individuals to remain free without getting the help they need in the hopes they will not become violent is not a solution. Being worried about their rights to not medicate puts everyone else at risk. Dangerous individuals (emotional and mental imbalance) should, in my opinion, have two options: medication to keep them from being dangerous or removal from society if they do not want to take it. Regular check ups and monitoring.
We either allow people to spiral out of control while we watch, unable to do anything until they do something dangerous and we can act or we decide safety is a priority and we, as a society, attempt to stop them before they do (for both our sakes). Those are the options.
Could not have said it better…as somebody said, and I know this might not be PC, but, she felt sorry for the shooter…because normal people do not do things like this, which meant this person probably needed help.
I’e heard his mother was in the process of having him committed, a very difficult process as he was already an adult. It must be the toughest thing for a parent to do, but that is why the state needs to be involved earlier. We, society, cannot wait for a parent to finally be so strung out and at the end of their rope… On one hand we don’t want to institutionalize anyone that may be able to function, but that must be balanced against the need for the public to be safe and know their children are safe. We continually wait too long to act and then wonder why this keeps happening…
well said ed.
but good luck convincing the the liberals that mental people need help–for they will never ever make people get the help they need.
The problem in this country is the absolutes and extremes… the polarization. The far right won’t budge on gun laws and, being in the middle, I’ll argue for the rights of law abiding citizens to own whatever weapon they want but cannot fathom arguing against licensing, waiting periods, and mental/emotional background checks. The far left has come out so far to the extreme on personal liberties and worries about labeling an individual that they cannot see the forest through the trees, and ignore the dangers to children and society trying to protect the rights of emotionally unstable people to remain in community based care or prisoners (including pedophiles) to get on with their lives once time has been served.
The lack of common sense and understanding that we cannot allow the extremes to decide what is good for all is beyond frustrating.
I saw this link on Janet’s page and read it. I completely agree with you but medication is not the only way…
In the above comment I read that the “liberals” have to be convinced about the ill getting help..I strongly disagree, I am a Liberal/Democrat and know they need to be helped and not just by medication, the help they need will be given to them with health insurance and actual therapy…when that does nto work then maybe pills. This is why I supported this law (2014 Health Care Act), so we can extend help to those who need it most-All Americans who may be not only ill physically but mentally as well. Does that not go hand in hand?
Medications tend to be used and then limited to that (by parent) when there is no money or health coverage to afford to see the Social Worker or Psychologist on a weekly/monthly basis to tackle the problems or trauma. Is that what people think the parents want when they are limited and a child/family member that seeks help…?
I am not for limiting gun laws/rights but shouldn’t there be a little bit of screening if there are such ill minded individuals and getting guns in shows, etc.?
Let’s imagine ourselves trying to find help for our loved ones with no health insurance, jobs, etc..or how much more difficult it would be if we did not know that they would future coverage for those that need it and will be willing to give themselves a chance in taking care of their health.
Happy Holidays! xoxo
Medication is not the only way, nor is hospitalization against their will. Therapy, treatment, safe homes, etc. as well as hospitalization and / or medication all need to be on the table. The key is treatment. If they are doing well, great. If they stop getting treatment, are getting violent, refuse to be treated, etc. then we, as a society, need to make it clear we are there to help but need to remove the option of being out in the community while a threat to others and themselves. Simply thinking we can pass a law, change the Constitution, and the same individuals that are willing to blow up a building or shoot up a kindergarden will now be safe? Ridiculous and it should be called that quickly so that we stop wasting time with both political sides spinning wheels in debates that will go no where and won’t help anyone. IF the issue were accidental gun deaths among legal owners, fine. Debate whether we need to stop selling them. But if the issue is mass murder by unbalanced people then we need to stop pretending a law will make it all go away and get the emotionally and mentally at risk individuals some help far sooner than we currently are. I do not believe the liberals don’t want to help. Not at all. I think there is a Catch 22 however, and while everyone wants to help, it is juxtaposed with a desire to not label and not force anyone to get help, and not institutionalize anyone until they prove themselves a danger. There are times things are mutually exclusive and choices have to be made… I do not see the far left doing that on this issue, but trying to have their cake and eat it too. The far right does the same, don’t get me wrong. This is not an issue where any one side is correct. Politics being what they are though, no one wants to get things done as it is an issue that alienates a group of voters whichever choice you back. Far easier to be ‘for’ the Constitution or ‘against’ assault rifles. It all looks good on bumper stickers and tee shirts. What we need though is a serious debate on whether we want all individuals to be able to remain free until they commit a horrible act, or whether society has the right to show an individual or group will likely do something and needs to be acted upon prior.
You have committed crimes against language. While these crimes would be considered misdemeanors in any other context, because of the severity of this issue at hand they should not go unnoticed.
You have now stripped yourself of the ability to ever use the following phrases without seeming like a complete fool;
1. not rocket science
2. not brain surgery
3. not rocket surgery
If there is any misunderstanding I will explain.
While the words you used were technically correct, you have not written anything here related to rockets, the common use of that phrase is instead to imply that something is a simple matter and that there is a solution obvious to yourself if not to everyone involved.
In fact it is more complicated than you make it out to be. You use the words “dangerous individuals” like there is some definitive way to determine if someone is dangerous or not. Is there some special test you have devised or some secret you would like to divulge to us that allows you to determine someones nature or state of mind.
Who decides who deserves this treatment or imprisonment who decides which of the two they get, and since you are on the topic of spiraling out of control; what happens when we become a medication and institution based culture where you can get committed for just being a bit weird. What happens when there are more people unjustly medicated or incarcerated than are killed by a stupid gunman?
It is the same with the justice system and wrongful conviction, what ratio is fine with you, one wrongful execution for every 1000 how about one thousand institutionalizations for every gunman. In the real world your system cannot compare, at least in the criminal justice world evidence is needed, you might be able to stop a handful of shootings with your plan but you will have to sacrifice the lives and freedom of thousands at the alter of safety.
This is not rocket science, rocket science is just chemistry, physics, and math the easiest most concrete subjects that exist today. We can send a rocket to the moon with hydrogen, oxygen, and a pocket calculator(and millions of dollars).
The issue we are currently discussing is the combination of psychology, sociology, ethics, and medicine which are all a hell of a lot more complicated and may take another 100 years to be fully understood.
I am personally insulted that you would even think of the comparison, or maybe you weren’t thinking.Which is worse?
“…the common use of that phrase is instead to imply that something is a simple matter and that there is a solution obvious to yourself if not to everyone involved.” Correct. Possibly you missed the entire point? My point was that while everyone is trying to make this out to be a complicated matter involving gun rights, the Constitution, etc. it is not. There is a simple solution which does not seem obvious to the majority: concentrate on mental and emotional illness instead of who has what gun. A solution cannot be found when the answer lies in a different place than you are looking. We cannot, as a society, say we want to not label anyone or commit them until we KNOW they are dangerous but then say we do not like these crimes being committed and want to stop them before they happen. Either we are reactive or proactive. We need to identify those that need help earlier and get them that help far sooner… waiting until they prove themselves dangerous is too late. Too many in society pay far too much so that those with issues don’t have a label applied to them. Not all emotionally or mentally ill are dangerous, certainly. But enough are that we are not dealing with. Too often we hear they needed help and did not get it, or should have been hospitalized while receiving treatment and were not forced to. We need to pay FAR more attention to those that potentially are dangerous to themselves and others and be we need to be FAR more concerned for the safety of children and society at large than we currently are.
For something to not be rocket science it does not have to be a one sentence simple solution in total. The answer needs to be far more simple than it is being made out to be by those the comment was directed toward. So, not only was I thinking, but doing so clearly. Hopefully you have reread and now understand.
It was perfectly apt in this case, see?
Its not rocket science.