Associated Press
The scene outside of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., on Friday.
Megan McArdle published a lengthy, rather provocative piece yesterday on the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, making the case that there's simply not much Americans can do to prevent similar tragedies in the future. There may be proposals on the table, McArdle argues, but they tend to be ineffective, unconstitutional, or impractical.
That's not an uncommon sentiment on the right, and it wouldn't be especially noteworthy, were it not for this tidbit of advice McArdle included in her piece, flagged by Jon Chait.
I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once.
Just so we're clear, McArdle wasn't kidding. As best as I can tell, her piece wasn't intended as satire or an attempt at humor.
Now, I can appreciate outside-the-box thinking as much as the next guy, and I understand that writers sometimes use blog posts as a sketch pad to flesh out unconventional ideas, some of which may not be fully formed. But I'd also like to go on record saying it strikes me as unwise for a society to encourage young, unarmed children, during a violent massacre, to run towards well-armed madmen.
Chait added, "You think gun control is impractical, so your plan is to turn the entire national population, including young children, into a standby suicide squad? ... Unless I am missing a very subtle parody of libertarianism, McArdle's plan to teach children to launch banzai charges against mass murderers is the single worst solution to any problem I have ever seen offered in a major publication."
And if this seems vaguely familiar, it's because it's eerily reminiscent of a similar piece we saw five years ago.
In April 2007, after the Virginia Tech massacre, John Derbyshire published a National Review item making a related argument, asking why people on campus didn't overcome their instincts and "rush the guy."
At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren't very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage -- your chances aren't bad.
As I wrote at the time, try to imagine the scenario: college students are sitting in their classrooms when they hear gun shots and screaming, and the noises are getting closer. They quickly realize that their lives are in immediate danger. At this very terrorizing moment, the students should think to themselves, "Hey, I think I know how many shots have been fired! Not only that, I also think I know what kind of gun that is and realize that a .22 would only do minor damage to me after it's fired into my body at close range! Millions of years of well-honed instincts are telling me to run like hell, but instead I'm inclined to run towards the well-armed madman!"
Five years after Derbyshire published this jaw-dropper, there's Megan McArdle making the case that we "drill it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun."
We can have a perfectly fair argument about the viability of firearm restrictions, which would no doubt lead to a spirited debate. But advice like McArdle's doesn't contribute anything constructive to the conversation -- we need not and should not teach kids to run at murderers trying to kill them.
Leave a Comment:
Ok I have to ask, WTF is she Smoking, and is it legal? Who in their right minds, tells a person to run towards the guy with the gun? Gang Rushing a guy with a gun will not decrease the number of casualties. What it will do, is increase how many people get shot quickly. While 8-12 people may be able to bring him down, the first 6-10 people who rush in are going to be at least shot if not die. Great plan, i volunteer Megan McArdle to be one of the first ones to go rushing in.
You know those are the very people that are the first to run & hide, because their lives are so much more important than the 8-10 other people that should "rush" the madman! SMH! And I'm with you, next time send her in first!
I have seen human wave attacks up close and personal...they don't turn out well for anybody
I think her brain is stuck in that Mythologized "Lets Roll" moment from Flight 93
Is this what she is telling her kids to do, rush a gunman?
I'm so glad every Tom, Dick, and Megan has a forum to weigh in with all their fantastic individual post-crisis ideas, so helpful in muddying the national dialogue to the point where sensible discussions get diluted down to nothing changing.
Kids die, empty yammering, more kids die, repeat.
Yeah, at least <em>Spy</em> Magazine knew it was joking.
(http://books.google.com/books?id=r7WVD2skAm8C&lpg=PP1&rview=1&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Just when you think they can't say anything more absurd........
They seem to have a limitless storehouse of terrible ideas.
I don't know about teaching people to counter attack but I remember a man telling some people ,"Let's Roll" He and his fellow passengers died but who knows how many they saved.
I was on a flight the first day the planes went into service and was a bit nervous. I told my wife I wanted to sit in the aisle seat instead of my usual window seat. Once the plane was loaded the door closed I raised up in my seat and looked around and saw all these guys in the aisle seats looking around just like me. I sat back down and told my wife, "Don't worry, no one will get into that cockpit"
After that day I have told myself, if I'm in a school I'll throw a book at the bastard and charge, in a supermarket I'll grab a can and go after them. If he shoots me, well @!$%# happens, but I will not lay down or hide.
I am going to die someday I'm pretty sure about that. It might be in a stupid car accident. Maybe cancer will get me. Or it might be a tree branch falling out of a tree on a clear blue day, like happened to my father. But when that tree branch fell on my father he threw his grandson, my nephew, to safety.
So If I get a chance to make my death mean something I plan on grabbing it. That is my choice.
If that's what you want to do, feel free, but are you going to teach your 6-year-old to do the same?
And, by the way, the terrorists on Flight 93 had box cutters, not assault rifles.
IF she is telling her kids to run towards a madman with a gun, then we can just call it natural selection.
damskippy
My son is 34 with a child of his own and I think he would put his body between anyone with a gun and his son. Soldiers put their bodies between society and evil, as do policemen and women.
I'm not a vigilante but sometimes we need to step up. I once crawled into a burning car and pulled an unconscious man out while about 20 people watched the car burn.
I don't fault those people for not taking the risk and I don't plan on training other people to charge people with guns. However somethings are worth dying for. Those things are people.
McArdle isn't talking about you and your 34-year-old son; she's talking about teachers and kids. And, while I think most of us would stand between our children (or grandchildren) and danger, what are the odds that we would be there to do so?
Can't you see that the solution lies in finding a way to stop potential killers - not preparing potential victims (including children) to heroically defend themselves?
damskippy
what are the odds that we would be there to do so?
I am a teacher and I would expect a teacher to protect their students. I am not talking about blindly attacking so bandit with a gun holding up the local store, we are discussing a madman in a school trying to kill as many people as possible.
That principle ran toward the gunman and died, in my book she is a hero. According to you all she should have cowered under a desk and hid. If she had succeeded in disarming or killing the gun man she would have given societies highest accolades. Were you folks talking about her with those snarky remarks about Darwin's Law?
You can hide under the desk if you want, that is fine with me. But I don't care whose kids are at risk, I will stand for them. I am not promoting this as a policy or a recommendation for others and I absolutely support gun control.
The real reason we have a gun problem in this country is fear. People use guns to make up for their fears and feelings of weakness. We need to overcome fear and face it.
That is why right wingers are such gun nuts. People like Rush and Sean Hannity tell them about all the bad people who are coming to take their stuff. The GOP sells fear and wins elections with it.
Pat if you have evidence of anyone snarking the principal's actions bring it forth. I have heard absolutely zero, zip, nada criticism. I follow over a hundred RSS feeds and number of articles and posts I have read on the topic is at least that many, probably closer to 150. Wherever you've dug up these people, I'd like to know.
OK, Pat . . . common ground . . . we both support gun control.
The bottom line for me is that we need to do whatever we can to avoid putting teachers and especially kids in the position of having to defend themselves against gunmen in their schools.
I am objecting to the common wisdom off being passive and waiting for the authorities to get there. It is not an absolute good rule, for most normal situations yes but not always.
A madman with a gun killing everyone and we just lay down or run and leave someone?
damskippy-yes you might say I support gun control-LOL check my last few days posts on Newsvine...
Sign White House Website Petition for gun control legislation:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-address-issue-gun-control-through-introduction-legislation-congress/2tgcXzQC
I don't know who this woman is, but she obviously is missing more than a couple of brain cells.
She's been watching too much television and thinks that big screen in her living room show her what the world is REALLY like.
She obviously has never been exposed to real violence or she would know that first of all, your mind just can't comprehend what is happening - so at first you really can't make any kind of "decision". This kind of violence usually happens so fast, that unless you are trained to deal with it, it is usually all over before you even start thinking about what to do or what you should have done.
NONE of us knows beforehand what we will do when faced with real violence. We find out the first time it happens. Many people who think they would be "heros" turn into blithering cowards and many people who think they would be paralyzed with fear turn into heros. And that INCLUDES all those people who have guns!! Your gun WON'T be the first thing you think of if it is the first time you are faced with real violence!! People need to get that TV "cop show" BS OUT of their heads - it just IS NOT like that!!
Why do you think the military spends so much time training soldiers and police departments spend so much time training cops? I've talked to many soldiers who said the first time they were in a firefight, the first thing they felt was complete confusion, and then their training kicked in and their actions became "automatic", and then they fought mostly to protect their buddies. What in the world would a non-trained person who just happens to be in a bad place at a bad time be expected to do - even if they had a gun?
McArdle has got to turn off the fantasy box every once in a while and talk to real people who have faced real violence.
From reports, several of the adults did rush the shooter. Their funerals will be held this week.
Easy for those two to be brave from behind a keyboard, probably behind the locked door of an office building.
Asses...
One of those adults from the Principals office who ran at the gunman managed to get behind a door. She is now in the hospital recovering from gunshot wounds to the legs. The school counselor survived because she hid under her computer desk.
If these people who want to rush the gunman because they are remembering flight 93 on 9/11, they need to remember that the terrorists on the airplanes did not have guns, only box cutters. And those who rushed the terrorists are dead.
It is totally absurd to tell little kids to rush a 20 year old with an assult rifle.
I'd like to play one of my favourite pieces in honour of the children who were lost.
Ravel: Pavane pour une infante defunte
http://www.ask.blinkx.com/watch-video/s-ozawa-conucts-pavane-pour-une-infante-defunte-ravel/qOCpK7IlUv_HN84k3G7Zhg
Berlioz: "Sanctus" from the Requiem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g-OcCDWd-U
You betcha, I'll be telling my beloved 12 year old daughter to run toward any and all shooters she encounters. No probs. Why, this is perfectly logical.
(If you can't detect hair-pulling while reading the above, you need an irony reset)
Holy Smokes! That is just about the stupidest crap I've heard all year, and this year has been a doozie for stupid crap.
I've actually been thinking about something else this morning. And that is that it's terribly sad that 20 children and 6 (or 7, including the mom) innocent adults are now gone before their time. But it could have been so much worse.
The actions those teachers took, when they heard the screams and shots, is easy to overlook, when it's hard to look away from the stories about the carnage. But their level-headedness to lock their classroom doors, cover the windows, hide their children and keep them quiet and calm till help arrived is just amazing. I want to take a moment to honor these heroes for doing exactly the right thing.
And to all the people who think the answer is more guns to protect against the crazies, this person votes NO!
I don't want to demonize the shooter's mother, but she is the one who bought the guns and presumably all of that ammunition as well. She is not an innocent victim.
I know, Mike. I was going to leave her out and then thought I'd just throw that in so as not to offend anyone. But you have a point.
@ Jl You have to remember that the school was in fact locked down and they had rehearsed the disaster several times with the teachers instructed to lock the doors . It could have been much worse
SNET, you're right. All I'm saying is that protecting the children that could be protected till police arrived was the most effective way to respond.
I'm only sorry that this even has to be a drill in schools today. When I was in grade school in Tulsa, we did fire drills and tornado drills. That was it.
How right you are , getting shot was not a concern. Sad sad state of affairs.
Mike in Michigan
One of the issues that I have yet to be aired is the real and important responsibility of gun owners to protect other people by insuring that their guns do not get into the hands of people who should not have them, particularly their family members. If she knew her son had mental issues and could not ever obtain a gun through legal means then frankly she bears a lot of responsibility for allowing him access and thus the carnage that followed. I personally know a father who lost is 18 yo son to suicide because the father's gun was not properly stored and the son took it and killed himself.
And all these guns were legally obtained.
Sooooo not we need to teach kindergarteners how to launch a human wave attack? what do we teach 5th graders trench warfare?
Has anyone told these people that "The Brown acid is bad"
She must have though the Children's Crusade was a great idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Crusade
McArdle is an idiot. I have no problem with someone making the choice to try this tactic because it could work and ends up being a "one life for many" argument. However, do not teach it and do not expect it.
Where I in such a situation, and I pray I never am, I would hope that I could in fact muster the courage to move towards the shooter. But I'll confess that every instinct in my would be to not do that. And I know that whatever I may want to imagine myself doing, once the bullets fly, even the bravest person may find they can't rise to the occasion in that particular instance.
I would not do wish this for myself because I have any delusions of being a hero, but because I would be one of the people around more likely to succeed in such an attempt compared to others, though my chances would still be exceptionally slim.
I'm a vet, I hold multiple black belts, I'm strong, and I actually possess training in disarming an armed assailant.
And I would expect that I would die in any such attempt.
But the slim chance I have to succeed would be better than the average person would possess, and maybe, just maybe I'd be successful, or buy others enough time to escape.
But I would never, ever encourage anyone who is not similarly trained, and fully prepared to accept that the mission is in fact one of suicide with a low chance of success to attempt it.
To give this advice to an untrained populace, including kids, is ludicrous in the extreme.
It is amazing to me the foolishness so many who have never trained for, let alone seen, armed conflict come up with. From arming teachers to this nonsense.
daw55, I pretty much fall into the same catergory as you, Vet, USMC Infantryman, trained in un-armed combat, hand to hand etc and I say this: Common Sense is the Better Part of Valor.
Trust me, I'm aware of that as well, Sarge GW. My point being, that if I thought I could position myself to be effective, and I thought that doing so would in anyway help those around me, I would hope I'd have the courage to do it.
But I also know every bone in my body would be screaming "get the hell out!"
Yes indeed it is ludicrous, especially when talking about a bunch of women and six year old kids. (I am a woman and I do not mean to imply that women are weak. Our strength is not, however, of the kind that can very often overcome a gunman with an assault rifle.)
One of the problems with the whole discussion of the right to bare arms is that weapons have evolved into such efficient tools of destruction. When the Constitution was written, the most efficient weapon was a bow and arrow. Guns were single shot muzzleloaders. Six shooters were invented so that people on the frontier could fight off Indians armed with bows and arrows. An Indian on a horse could shoot a dozen arrows in the time it took a paleface to shoot one bullet and the muskets and rifles of the day could not be used on horseback.
And horse soldiers became obsolete with the invention of the Gattling Gun. Watch War Horse, Steven Spielberg's movie released last year about war, courage, and endurance.
daw55, I am in agreement with what you have said 100%.
I'm female, not young, not very big, no hand-to-hand training. No hero. I fervently hope that in such an emergency I would have the guts to throw something heavy at a shooter and move in, since bumping a shooter for even a minute could save lives. I am fairly certain that it's hard to shoot a rifle at someone who gets closer than the end of the rifle but am not at all sure I could get that close before a trigger could be pulled. I would expect to die, and can't honestly say if such a death would be a smart one. I doubt if I would have the courage, though, and hope not to find out. I would, however, strongly encourage any children to run and/or hide, whichever seems most appropriate at the time.
I know it is a common mental exercise to imagine what one could do in a particular situation to save one's own life or, even better, the lives of others. How many of us try to think what to do if a tsunami is coming or if a plane is hijacked or a shooter comes into our workplace? I know I have. (Climb a tall tree, rush the hijacker with blankets, jump out the window -- my best plans.) I think many of us imagine ourselves capable of doing something both brave and useful.
That said, I am also capable of imagining myself leaping hurdles and doing back flips, neither of which my aging body has ever done and which I have no likelihood of ever doing successfully. I suspect I am equally as capable of disarming a gun-wielding killer. The reality is that I would hurt myself trying to get over a hurdle, land on my head trying a back flip and get killed rushing a killer.
It may be that a group rush would eventually succeed. But the body count, especially with an assault rifle involved, could be stunning. If nobody gets through until the 300th person and those after, that would not be an improvement in most situations. So, sure, if you want to do a suicidal rush, go for it. But it's not a really good plan. Considered and rejected. Thanks anyway for the suggestion.
I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters,
Yeah, McArdle - We're right behind you.
I think McArdle was kidding. Every true Randian (like their idol) sides with the mass killer. He is the one without guilt or compassion. The idea of people being suckered into collective action and then being mowed down is a Randian wet dream.
If you want to know just how stupid gun junkies are, just get them talking about, uh, guns.
Notwithstanding McArdle's complete dumbassery, you can see all the NRA arguments in their full retarded glory being proferred repeated and non-stop on forums across the country. For example, check out comment sections on columns about guns in the WP. You'll get them all. They're so stupid they'd be funny if the whole topic wasn't so sick.
Yeah, I had a friend who posted on FB a comment about the relative lack of news coverage for the many, many gun deaths OTHER than these high-profile stories. And wouldn't you know, somebody responded with a story about the lack of effectiveness of gun control. Huh?? Talk about defensive. He wasn't even talking about whether or not people should have guns. Just that so many of these tragedies go unnoticed.
It's non-stop stupidity. Each argument so stupid on the face of it that an 8 year old could debunk it. And yet, just like with supply-side economics, just like with global warming, they continue spewing the easily debunked nonsense. Maybe even worse than their stupidity is their lack of shame, their inability to be embarrassed.
What can you do when you're the only one in the room saying 2 + 2 = 4 and the rest of them are shouting 2 + 2 = 3? That's what we're up against in this increasingly stupid country. About 40 - 45 % of the population of the United States is causing a world disaster.
#11.2 Disgusted,
The president must feel like he is herding cats trying to work with these intransigent Republicans.
I'd be ripping my hair out by now. I there anything they do, want, or think that does not make me furious?
Remember these are the people who think prisons are the best way to treat mental illness, they also believe the death penalty is the best way to fix the problem of teaching the mentally ill and challenged not understanding that their actions have consequences so it is a good lesson for them to see what happens to others who refused to learn a lesson. I mean really the mentally ill choose to be mentally ill or else they would get help from the non existent mental health clinics. They say that everyone knows the difference between right and wrong, yet they forget that even they had to be taught and it is rather hard teaching someone who believes they are god or gods right hand, yeah religion attracts the mentally ill too, that what they believe is right is wrong, though its amusing because they can't tell the difference either no matter how many times they are proven wrong that their beliefs are wrong. Maybe that is the reason the righties are so bad at dealing with reality, they are insane.
While McArdle stated it was "only" a .22, did others note in the news reports that the Sandy Hook killer used bullets designed to do the most damage? Perhaps hollow-points? That the killer murdered 26 people in 10 minutes?
Why is that so many people think they're somehow better than others and would somehow succeed against a shooter armed with semi-automatic weapons with large ammo clips??? As someone else noted, it's easy to sit at your keyboard and tap out words of your super-humaness, but in practice?
The first clue that she is ignorant (of firearms; the other topics we will leave for later), is that she talks about a ".22" and "real damage". Yes, the .22 is not a terribly powerful rimfire cartridge. The .228, however is the NATO 5.56 round,- the cartridge found in every M-16 in every combat zone.
Besides (Beware: Bridge Out -Sarchasm Ahead) she says we should teach our toddlers to be aggressive!
Oh, the horrors! Instead we should equip them with "body armor"- just like Daddy wears in the Marines!
you first, dearie.
LOVE IT.
And how would toddlers determine who to be aggressive against? Gunmen, disciplinarians, toy-taking classmates, parents?
I've never understood why McArdle is taken seriously by intelligent people. I've never read anything by her that made any sense.
Well, as much as an idiot as she sounds, from a strategy stand point, the only way to survive a "ambush" like this is to turn on the attacker, but your chances of survival improve by a small percent as compared to huddling in corner. However, to expect teachers, or children to do such a thing when even trained soldiers freeze under that kind of attack is assanine.
More children would have been saved if teachers were trained to do more than lock the door and huddle in the corner. My wife is a teacher, and thats what her '"lockdown" instructions are, when they should be "lock the door, break your ground floor window and get the kids to safety" instead of lock the door, huddle in the corner and wait to die.
OK, will you now point to a single shread of evidence? I have seen dozens of interviews with survivors who hid from gunmen, but not a single one from someone who ran at the shooter except for the Tuscon shooting when the perp tried to reload.
This is how everyone defending the gun culture sounds, stupid and unhinged. I just listened to Rep Kingston on MSNBC, he complained when Roberts pointed out the rights crusade against any speck of gun control, he complained that Roberts was being "political". Seriously! These cowards are painted into a corner, and they will end up trying to worm away any legit steps that can be taken. The time to hit them with reasonable restrictions is January 1.
Rachel,
I feel sorry when people are trying to dodge the position of guns in this horrible event. Gun is one of those tools whose sole purpose is to take life. May it be deer, bird or human. Every other tool even weapons of destruction like bombs, fighter planes, aircraft carriers and nuclear can be used for something other then killing.
It doesn't matter how crazy a person gets, you cannot take away the fact that with all the metal illness and violent games, Adam Lanza will not be able to cause such a destruction without a GUN. He can set the school on fire, or hit his mom and others with a car, he would not be able to cause a Massacre.
Civilian gun ownership makes no sense!
My 2c
Civilian gun ownership makes perfect sense in a world like today. Maybe if we were Britain and NEVER allowed guns, I might agree with you, but since today there are MILLIONS of guns in the U.S. there isn't much to do to stop it. With how many felons and bad people out there, a civilian owning a gun can save their life. And being as we won our freedom (from Britain) using civilian owned guns (militia), it would be asinine to say 'We are outlawing every gun owned by a citizen.'
Except you are confusing TV westerns with reality. Really there are not hoards of felons and bad men roaming the streets shooting everything they see. Really criminal actions are not as rampant as TV makes it look like. Take the popular Fox show COPs, for a half hour show the Fox film crew would have to ride around for weeks to get action in the most crime ridden area's in the country why because crimes are random events that happen when opportunity presents itself. The media does this to make it seem like police are under staffed and unable to do their jobs, so people like you will buy guns you will never need. I live in the third highest crime city in my state I hung out in the highest crime areas, I witnessed 1 crime in 50 years. I witnessed 1 murder, I had 1 family member die from a murder, her husbands boy friend strangled her while he was at work, she didn't know husband was gay, I went to school with 3 guys who got drunk got in a car with a shotgun and went through the city shooting anyone with dark complexion guess what, no one had a clue that they would go on a shooting spree before they were arrested, one of the people they shot had a gun he was dead before he knew what was happening. Nice try at history rewrite 101 but France provided the colonies with military grade firearms, you should research the fact behind the myth, also the guns the colonists had were military grade as well, why, rather simple there was no police or military to protect them from Natives who wanted them off their land.
Amber: You are, of course, utterly wrong. But that's to be expected, since you're using a standard NRA excuse about why we shouldn't do anything. And like all NRA excuses, reality proves that it's a load of @!$%#. In this case, reality comes from Australia.
I'm just saying that the second amendment was put there for a reason. That American people should have to right to protect themselves from tyrants. And I do consider criminals tyrants for when they are attacking you, they have all the power and they can do whatever they want.
Shadetail:
I do believe that to purchase of military grade weapons should become illegal as well as large magazines. And I am also not part of the NRA. I am just an American citizen defending the second amendment.
Amber,
Look at the top of the post. See that name up there? Not Rachel Maddow. Yes, I know the name is 'maddowblog', but just like Huffington Post the name of the webpage does not mean that that person writes the posts. And yes we all see that creepy, crappy little picture of RM.
The name you want is STEVE BENEN. As smart as RM and a great writer.
When talking about Newtown with my grandchildren, my 10-year-old grandson said that, if that ever happened at his school, he would do his best to take the gunman out (he knows tae kwon do). I told him he'd do no such thing; he'd run as fast and as far away as he could.
Apparently, Ms. McArdle has the mind-set of a 10-year-old, so why should anyone take her seriously?
The biggest missed point is the mental illness side of this story. We definitely need a much more focused discussion on this issue. Wasn't it Reagan that released all of the mental patients out of the facilities by closing them? The shooter was someones child, with serious problems. Unfortunately, he wasn't receiving the kind of help he needed and mom provided the vehicle (guns) to perform such a crazy act. Think about it, who chooses to cause such harm to 6 year olds? This poor kid was insane. It's a combo platter of issues, the 2 biggest being mental health services AND gun safety & control.
I think it's complicated, which is maybe why there aren't more comments on this.
Mainly, it's hard to predict which one of the thousands of [Asperger's, depressives, psychotics--what's that new one? something like intermittent explosive anger?] is going to cause death and destruction and which will suffer in relative silence. You can't just round them up and lock them all away, nor can they even all be labeled and entered in intensive treatment. Although I agree with you that Adam Lanza could not have been in his right mind to carry out this angry and destructive act. It's just, how do you know ahead of time, so you can predict and prevent it?
I once worked in Family Court and saw that MANY threats of domestic violence were empty, while a relative few were spot on. Do you restrain all the threateners because you don't know which ones will act? Our current opinion is no, to err on the side of "innocent until proven guilty," or in this case "mentally stable until proven otherwise." It's that gray area that's hard. There's not a good solution.
tractorbeam: You're absolutely right. Stricter gun laws aren't enough in and of themselves; we also have to address our appalling lack of a decent mental healthcare system, and our joke of a criminal justice system. But stricter gun laws definitely need to be step one.
in this case, the parents had the finances to provide whatever treatment this guy needed. It wasn't a case of lousy health insurance, as it often is. They could have afforded out of pocket care/treatment.
The U.S. is exceptional with respect to homicides, and not in a good way; see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-strict-laws-work.html?ref=opinion .
As Gail Collins put in on Saturday, "Every country has a sizable contingent of mentally ill citizens. We’re the one that gives them the technological power to play god."
How have we gotten to the point where we defend the right to possess an inatimate object so ferociously that someone can argue a child should be trained to commit suicide before we discuss perhaps restricting access to the object.
Why do you hate America?
Mech...,
I know you were being ironic, but actually a reasonable answer to the question would be "Because America eats its young."
In the Korean war, the Chinese sent waves of people at our troops with the first wave having guns and the next wave using the guns that were on the bodies of the fallen. It didn't work then, and it would be worse with unarmed children. Guns kill, and more, faster guns kill more. Single shot weapons are all that is needed for defense or hunting. Do we let a few hundred more die before we react?
What drives me CRAZY with these politicians (and the MEDIA that 'advises' them) is everything is an 'either/or' proposition. There is NEVER a 'let's do it ALL' and see which is more effective. Whether on gun control or the fiscal cliff we hear 'well THAT won't work so we won't do that' and it's based on POLITICS not facts. I am really sick of this stuff.
http://iaijutsu.hivetimes.org.uk/2012/12/17/all-teeth-and-claws-rise-of-the-anti-coulter/