Would members of congress and the news media be calling for a gun-ban and stronger gun laws or would they be addressing means to mitigate the outcome which would, in the event have been the same; defenseless victims killed?
The problem as has been pointed out in numerous other venues is the emotion attached to the event preventing rational thought about solutions. If we were attacked by a representative of an enemy sworn to do us harm and known to be a threat, we'd defend potential targets against the attacks, and take measures; intel, covert and overt action to search out and eliminate that threat. Indeed, we did that after 9/11; reinforced cockpit doors on airliners, Federal Flight Deck Officer program, enhanced passenger screenings, troops to Afghanistan etc. In fact the two most effective defenses, in my opinion have been the cockpit doors and the change in public attitude to wit, no-one seems concerned now about tackling someone on an airplane exhibiting threatening behavior, and both shoe bomber Richard Reid and underwear bomber "" were successfully tackled and restrained by pax and crew (albeit after failing to adequately detonate their devices) though there have been several type 1 errors (rejecting the null hypothesis) - where those tackled were not terrorists, just a nervous fliers/mentally unbalanced, though still conceivably threats to air safety. You can argue the effectiveness of the TSA and I cannot defend the majority of their processes.
What we did not do was get all hysterical over knives; the TSA did ban knives and other pointy objects for a while, but for the most part these restrictions have been eased. There were no calls for enhanced background checks for box-cutter purchasers, or bans on knives with a cutting edge radius sharper than 2 microns (a very dull edge).
Perhaps we could exercise some rational thought here and consider: what who where when how?
- What is the problem? - mass killings in civil society
- Who perpetrates these killings? - there needs to be a level of psychopathy to allow the killer to detach and kill. Most shootings by "rational" people tend to be heat of the moment impassioned affairs, involving few victims, often immediate family. while these are tragedies in their own right, they are a n entirely different category from mass shootings which invariably involve mentally unstable individuals.
- Where do these mass killings occur? - almost all have been in locations where the victims are undefended by virtue of gun bans or gun-free zones. This is partly coincidental as places where large groups of people gather are invariably Gun Free Zones, though the shooters may have deliberately avoided places with large numbers of people but where armed citizens are allowed.
- When do these mass killings occur? - there does not appear to be a pattern.
- How are these mass killings carried out? - invariably firearms with multiple and/or high capacity magazines. The perpetrators tend to plan and carry significant quantities of ammunition.
Using the above information a rational means of defense against the "what" can be developed. The approach should be along the lines of:
- There is no single simple solution
- A multi-layered defence is probably best
- Do not discount a single component in the solution because it cannot in and of itself effect the solution - that's like saying we should ban car airbags because they can cause additional injuries in a car crash if the occupant is not wearing a seat belt - together the combination is way more effective than either restraint alone.
- Purely emotional objections to proposed solutions (or parts thereof) have no place in the debate e.g. "OMG, you can't arm teachers, that's just wrong, think of the children..."
- If you object to a suggestion raise a cogent argument against it.
- Money will, as ever, be a consideration....that's the way the world works, get over it.
Direct firearms related:
- Ban high capacity magazines - that is those over the original design maximum for the weapon - if a 15 round mag fits in the hand-grip of your pistol and doesn't protrude, it's not high capacity. A thirty round mag which extends 4 inches below the hand grip, however, is hi-cap. Don't know how to deal with existing hi-cap mags.....
- Tax ammunition - a significant tax on anything discourages its use.
- Shall-issue CCW in all states - mental health screening and demonstrated proficiency - biannual recurrent training/demo required
- No gun-free zones for CCW - allows teachers w/ CCW to carry in schools.
- Armed school security guards paid by ammo tax.
- Mental health screening prior to firearms purchase
- Better mental health screenings
- Restrictions on first person shooter games sales to under 25 yr olds
- Restrictions on graphical reality of first person shooter games
- Better school security - passive security; layout, construction etc. non-lethal defenses -
- Social policies which promote two-parent families and family stability
- Right of parents to discipline children
- Limits on Politically Correct restrictions on traditional values
I'd like to hear your thoughts...
Related Articles found researching this post:
How to sharpen a knife;
Atomic Edge Medical Blade:
Britain - going the British way again:
(http://www.economist.com/node/13135660). Actually I have no issues with blunt ended knives - as the article points out who uses the point anyway...