Another horrific school shooting brings up the call for more gun control, but the latest one did not involve an “assault weapon.” This must disappoint the anti-gun crowd, because it takes away the “demon” they wish to ban as a solution to ending “gun violence.”
It is obvious that when an evil person decides to commit a horrendous crime, they will find a way to do it. While some of the mass murders have involved semiautomatic rifles, many others have not. We remember one of the most devastating weapons that may have set a record for causing deaths in an instant was a rented truck filled with ammonium nitrate fertilizer and fuel oil.
It was responsible for the loss of more lives than any firearm and also took down a major part of a building. It took a while to find the perpetrator of the crime. He was caught, found guilty and sentenced to death. Nobody had suggested a banning of any of the products that was used to cause these deaths. It was strictly a matter of dealing with the murderer.
Another mass murderer used a Molotov Cocktail to cause the death of almost a hundred people in New York City many years ago. Again, the killer was the blame and paid the penalty.
Recently, in Canada, a deranged person rented a truck killing and wounded many people just by running them over. Canada has strict gun laws and it didn’t mean a thing to this murderer. This was carefully planned and executed.
The Boston Marathon killers made a bomb out of a pressure cooker and caused death, maiming and general destruction. Common household products can be used to cause death and destruction. How tough is it to construct a pipe bomb, or poison a punch bowl at a party?
On a daily basis, we read about the use of vehicle bombs and suicide bombers that wreak havoc and panic with great efficiency. Yet, the media and anti-gun politicians believe that banning a certain type of gun will prevent mass murders in America. Obviously, they are wrong.
If there were no guns, bombs, edged weapons, etc. it might be more difficult to commit these horrendous crimes, but what would laws do to prevent the vehicle crimes? If a person is crazy or evil, there will be a method found and used to carry out the crime. It is worth to note that the FBI statistics show that more people are killed by blunt force trauma and edged weapons than are murdered by the use of rifles of all kinds.
The fact that the last few mass murders happened in schools and churches, shows that the killers look for soft targets. The “gun free zones” have been the ideal killing fields for the deranged and evil criminals. They choose a venue where they have virtually no chance of being stopped by an armed person. They take advantage of the opportunity to prove the adage of “criminals don’t obey laws.”
A criminal tried to commit a school invasion recently in Chicago, but the school had an armed resource officer who stopped the killer before he could do any damage. The disaster in Texas may have had the same result if they had had a trained and armed person in that school. The Texas school children paid a big penalty because their school did not have that kind of protection.
Some people say that it would be too expensive to place protectors in the schools. However, isn’t it strange that buildings that have politicians and bureaucracies don’t have a problem with expenses of that nature to protect them? What makes the life of politicians and bureaucrats more valuable than the lives of students? This is a good question to ask the politicians who are running for office this year.
The question of should school teachers be armed comes up and from a practical viewpoint, the answer is complex. Having a gun doesn’t make a person a savior any more than having a guitar or accordion makes a person a musician.
To be competent, a person needs extensive training and the proper attitude in order to react effectively when a life or death emergency occurs. Just having a gun is no guarantee it will stop a mass murder, but there is virtually no chance of stopping a killer without a viable, effective means of immediate self-defense.
When it comes to solutions to reduce the “gun violence” the anti-gun media and politicians rely on slogans and rhetoric. If the public believes what they say, that can be enough to warp minds or get votes. However, it doesn’t save lives.
What saves lives are actions and effective programs to properly address the problem. The focus should be on the type of people who commit the crimes and to find a way to interact and define motives. Schools should check for the “red flags” that may come up in a person’s actions prior to their committing the crimes. Perhaps teachers should be taught to look for these signs or have a psychologist give seminars on this subject. It would be a positive approach.
The old saying “If you keep doing what you have been doing, you will keep getting what you got.” Is a truism. Society has changed and attitudes have changed. Movies and video games promoting violence have affected thinking. Young people don’t look at murder, mayhem and violence as something to be avoided. They look at those actions as entertainment. Seeing gore and death on the big and small screens takes the horror out of the actions in reality. Some people live in a fantasy world of their own making. They can be dangerous.
Evil started with the second generation of mankind and it is a constant problem in society. Some blame the problems on children not having enough proper discipline and learning respect as they grow. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. It all starts in the home. What values are parents teaching their children? The schools are no substitute for good parenting. Perhaps the sociologists could come up with a proper answer.
Society needs a working over. What is going on now, isn’t working. We need to regroup and rethink how to create better attitudes and values. Obviously this is a tough job and it has to start with better parenting.
