(My Clovis News Journal column for Winter Solstice/The Mayan Apocalypse/December 21, 2012.)
Mass murders.
Who commits them?
Where do they happen?
How can they be prevented?
How can they be stopped when prevention fails?
These seem to be the only reasonable questions to ask in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.
Who commits them? People who have mental problems; which have usually been treated with SSRI medications. People who, for various reasons, are already prohibited (illegally and unconstitutionally) from possessing the weapons they use to murder people.
Where do they happen? Almost exclusively in places where people have been told they are not allowed to be armed, and usually where there will be a crowd of distracted people and a bottle-neck to "control" entry.
How can they be prevented? By curing mental illness, or by force or the threat of force.
While seeking cures there needs to be an immediate solution, and there is.
People can be locked up before they start killing, or it can be made impossible for them to kill anyone. Therein lies a problem.
No expert can know who is really a threat. There's also the problem of "who gets to decide what constitutes a 'mental illness?'" Just like "drunk driving", the definition will creep to include anything the "authorities" want it to encompass.
There is also no way, short of killing the person, to make it impossible for them to harm someone. The brain is really the only weapon there is, and as long as it is conscious and able to control the body, it can kill. The tools used to accomplish that perverted goal are interchangeable and irrelevant.
So how about prevention through the threat of force? That works better. By letting these aggressive monsters know that they will not have an easy harvest, they may decide it isn't worth it- not enough infamy to bother. That police will eventually show up doesn't stop them because they know they'll have met their goal by that time. But a universally-armed society? That those they plan on killing will fight back and ruin the scheme removes much incentive.
Which leads to the final question: How can massacres be stopped when prevention fails? By the good violence of self defense. Immediately deployed. From several different sources at once. Sure, most of these monsters plan on dying, but they also plan on murdering a large number before that happens. Foil them. Any other suggestions are just the sounds of sheep bleating, begging the wolf to go away, while standing in the butcher's holding pen.
Who commits them?
Where do they happen?
How can they be prevented?
How can they be stopped when prevention fails?
These seem to be the only reasonable questions to ask in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.
Who commits them? People who have mental problems; which have usually been treated with SSRI medications. People who, for various reasons, are already prohibited (illegally and unconstitutionally) from possessing the weapons they use to murder people.
Where do they happen? Almost exclusively in places where people have been told they are not allowed to be armed, and usually where there will be a crowd of distracted people and a bottle-neck to "control" entry.
How can they be prevented? By curing mental illness, or by force or the threat of force.
While seeking cures there needs to be an immediate solution, and there is.
People can be locked up before they start killing, or it can be made impossible for them to kill anyone. Therein lies a problem.
No expert can know who is really a threat. There's also the problem of "who gets to decide what constitutes a 'mental illness?'" Just like "drunk driving", the definition will creep to include anything the "authorities" want it to encompass.
There is also no way, short of killing the person, to make it impossible for them to harm someone. The brain is really the only weapon there is, and as long as it is conscious and able to control the body, it can kill. The tools used to accomplish that perverted goal are interchangeable and irrelevant.
So how about prevention through the threat of force? That works better. By letting these aggressive monsters know that they will not have an easy harvest, they may decide it isn't worth it- not enough infamy to bother. That police will eventually show up doesn't stop them because they know they'll have met their goal by that time. But a universally-armed society? That those they plan on killing will fight back and ruin the scheme removes much incentive.
Which leads to the final question: How can massacres be stopped when prevention fails? By the good violence of self defense. Immediately deployed. From several different sources at once. Sure, most of these monsters plan on dying, but they also plan on murdering a large number before that happens. Foil them. Any other suggestions are just the sounds of sheep bleating, begging the wolf to go away, while standing in the butcher's holding pen.
.
