Perhaps some people will indeed go without treatment if the law is enforced. And perhaps some people will be unfairly deprived of firearms when they are actually harmless. But those criticisms prove only that no policy is perfect. Some minor side effects are a small price to pay for reducing the threat posed by the likes of Cho Seung-Hui.
The obvious alternative to upgrading enforcement of the existing law is to repeal it and let people known to suffer from dangerous mental illnesses enjoy free access to firearms. And that, pardon the expression, would be lunacy.
Yeah, Steve, if someone besides you gets killed because they've been rendered defenseless, it's a "small price" and a minor side effect." It must be small, because you're not the one paying it.
How about--falling back on your original premise--if somebody is psychotic and a danger to himself and others, and this has been adjudicated with full legal representation--that he be removed from society? it seems anything else, again using your words, would be lunacy.
But then again, maybe I should watch what I wish for. I suppose for taking a public stand on this issue like I do on a daily basis, I might be considered a danger to myself--or at least inviting danger form those who demand obedience and compliance. And I pray to God when the day comes where I may need to physically defend my rights that I will prove to be a danger to others.
Nuts, huh?
I was disappointed to see that Chapman column. In the past, believe it or not, Chapman has been the lone voice at the Chicago Tribune against restrictive gun laws.
ReplyDeleteI guess he buys what Wayne and Co. are selling.
Nuts? Makes prefect sense to me.
ReplyDeleteWhen the VT argument invariably comes to giving guns to crazy people, I warn the same thing (even though they rarely understand the weight of my comment).
Be careful, because when “crazies” can be denied inalienable rights, I guarantee you the government’s definition of “crazies” will expand over time. Well-meaning legislation combined with incrimentalism has denied many honest citizens their rights.
It's moments like these when I wish our stray sheep could have the benefit of the short introduction to spotting misleading information, as given by one of my high school history teachers. The hand waving needs to stop. State policy has been changed, and national policy change is being proposed based on one incident. However, they're ignoring the obvious.
ReplyDeleteThe single biggest factor that could have changed the outcome was an armed defense. It had the best chances of stopping the attack, regardless of all the unknowns, because it could have been done at exactly the moment when his intent became obvious. Cho Seung-Hui wasn't walking around with a tattoo on his forehead that read, "I'm going to murder 32 people on April 16th!" He was evaluated by professionals, and they weren't even certain.
Without a major emphasis on bare-fisted defense laws, the whole discussion is bogus, and a waste of everyone's time. It's also intellectually dishonest to use information collected after the fact to propagate the fiction of preemptive justice. No predictive methods and technologies sounded the alarms on April 15th, despite the fact the almighty, infallible government was in full possession of all the relevant facts. (I'm assuming they're relevant, since we have no shortage of opinions on the solution. Who would propose a solution without considering all the facts? That'd just be "guessing".)
Think about what you're being asked to believe:
...that it is prudent to connect together a quasi-public instution with several government-run institutions across the state, and two other federal ones, to pass around health records...
...that there exists the mathematical analysis, the technology, a reliable communication network, and the manpower to comb through the data and pick out exactly the right person, without false positives...
...that this resulting bureaucracy will actually be affordable, the data will always be current, and it will be fast and reliable enough to always result in timely action...
...that it will forever remain current, reliable and accurate enough to stop one or two of these incidents per decade...
...that this effort won't divert resources from stopping other violent criminals who commit thousands more violent crimes...
...that a desk-jockey looking in a database is more effective than multiple, armed defenders at the scene of the crime, who are willing to pay fees, instead of submitting a budget every spring, in exchange for permission to exercise an inalienable right in defense of their own lives.
Perhaps this is beyond my ability to understand. What is the incontrovertible, completely accurate method for determining if someone with depression will suddenly become a murderer? Doctors can't accurately gauge a patient's level of depression (especially an unwilling patient), or even prescribe exactly the right medication on the first try, but maybe I just live in an area where all the doctors are incompetent. Every single one of them.
...Or perhaps it's not my misunderstanding, but the misinformed ramblings of a bunch of reactionary blowhards, who would issue diktats, who are so focused on the immediate that they can't be bothered with the facts about where the dangerous mentally ill are found, the broad spectrum of mental illness, that actual statistical likelihood that these people will become dangerous, or that "well-regulated", armed citizens would have made a difference.
TJH: Brilliantly reasoned and stated. This deserves a standalone post so people don't miss it--I'll do so tomorrow. Care to suggest a title? Otherwise, I'll blunder one up.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I wish I could credit you by name instead of initials, but understand some prefer anonymity due to their life circumstances. Email me if you want to change that.
Two comments.
ReplyDeleteFirst TJH's comments deserve praise and most importantly they deserve consideration. The logic is flawless and strikes right to the heart of the matter; that the government is not able to predict or prevent such tragedies but responsible armed citizen on scene very well may be able to minimize the damage done.
Second commenter "ExistingThing" said "Be careful, because when “crazies” can be denied inalienable rights, I guarantee you the government’s definition of “crazies” will expand over time."
Just this morning I heard a report on the radio citing a pentagon study which indicated "increased risk of mental health issues" with veterans serving multiple tours. I fear that there is an inevitable convergence of the denial of the RTKBA and the "syndrome" mad medical profession.