So after this latest school shooting, and despite the normal calls for "More Gun Control" from the Usual Suspects....
And now people are saying that we should "Strengthen the Background Check procedures".....All of , by the way, were followed.....There was, simply, no reason to deny Mr. Cruze the purchase of a firearm because there was nothing on the record for which to deny him.....No "strengthening" would have fixed that.
And people are saying that "Law Enforcement should have done something"...(which, in the case of the FBI, may be true, but in the case of the locals....what should they have done?).
I have a thought:
We have over the course of my lifetime...which is more half half a century now...as a society, completely screwed up the mental health system in our society. People who are a danger to themselves OR OTHERS are routinely pushed back out onto the street. People who should be taken in for a mental health examination simply aren't, as the police know that it is a waste of their time and their effort. At one time, these people WERE pulled away from the rest of us and held because they were a safety issue for society.
Now, having said that, at what point should someone be examined and/or held? When should they be held? There used to be some sort of criteria, and there were places for those people that, once deemed to need it, to be held. We have destroyed the system that worked, and that kept people that were a danger, for the most part, away form the rest of the society at large.
Now, having said THAT, I need to point out that the fear that this would be abused is real, and that there are those, mostly on the Left, but also on the Right, that would abuse it, were they able. We saw that when Barry Obama tried to take freedoms and rights away from those veterans who needed help on their taxes and/or benefits, claiming that that was proof that they were incompetent....
And, really, none of us want to see another mass shooting by a disturbed teenager (as in the latest), or a young male who is drugged to his eyeballs in an attempt to keep him on the streets (Aurora, Colorado, Jared Loughner in Tucson (who should have been denied the firearm, but Momma worked for the Police Department and they never charged him when they should have) and Adam Lanza in Connecticut)
Yes, the Constitutional issues are present, and yes, this can be a very slippery slope. I understand that. No one said this would be easy. And no, I don't think that the Constitutional issues are of little import. But, ultimately, society has to police itself and keep it's defective and dangerous members away from the rest of us much in the manner that we fence or leash a dangerous dog to protect the rest of society.
And one thing that I feel it is necessary to point out is that, logically, if a person is deemed too much of a danger to society to be allowed the purchase or ownership of a firearm, then they are too much of a danger to society to be allowed to coexist with the rest of us....period.
Reread that sentence above: For those that would use the mental health claim to keep many of us from owning firearms: You'd have to incarcerate us. Because, again: If people are too dangerous to own a firearm, then they shouldn't be allowed near other people in society. Not have the ability to own rocks, scissors, knives, automobiles, flammable liquids, etc. Yes, it is a statement that many disagree with. I don't care. If you are deemed unfit to own a weapon, then you shouldn't be mixing with the rest of the "normal" members of society....for the safety of the others.
And now people are saying that we should "Strengthen the Background Check procedures".....All of , by the way, were followed.....There was, simply, no reason to deny Mr. Cruze the purchase of a firearm because there was nothing on the record for which to deny him.....No "strengthening" would have fixed that.
And people are saying that "Law Enforcement should have done something"...(which, in the case of the FBI, may be true, but in the case of the locals....what should they have done?).
I have a thought:
We have over the course of my lifetime...which is more half half a century now...as a society, completely screwed up the mental health system in our society. People who are a danger to themselves OR OTHERS are routinely pushed back out onto the street. People who should be taken in for a mental health examination simply aren't, as the police know that it is a waste of their time and their effort. At one time, these people WERE pulled away from the rest of us and held because they were a safety issue for society.
Now, having said that, at what point should someone be examined and/or held? When should they be held? There used to be some sort of criteria, and there were places for those people that, once deemed to need it, to be held. We have destroyed the system that worked, and that kept people that were a danger, for the most part, away form the rest of the society at large.
Now, having said THAT, I need to point out that the fear that this would be abused is real, and that there are those, mostly on the Left, but also on the Right, that would abuse it, were they able. We saw that when Barry Obama tried to take freedoms and rights away from those veterans who needed help on their taxes and/or benefits, claiming that that was proof that they were incompetent....
And, really, none of us want to see another mass shooting by a disturbed teenager (as in the latest), or a young male who is drugged to his eyeballs in an attempt to keep him on the streets (Aurora, Colorado, Jared Loughner in Tucson (who should have been denied the firearm, but Momma worked for the Police Department and they never charged him when they should have) and Adam Lanza in Connecticut)
Yes, the Constitutional issues are present, and yes, this can be a very slippery slope. I understand that. No one said this would be easy. And no, I don't think that the Constitutional issues are of little import. But, ultimately, society has to police itself and keep it's defective and dangerous members away from the rest of us much in the manner that we fence or leash a dangerous dog to protect the rest of society.
And one thing that I feel it is necessary to point out is that, logically, if a person is deemed too much of a danger to society to be allowed the purchase or ownership of a firearm, then they are too much of a danger to society to be allowed to coexist with the rest of us....period.
Reread that sentence above: For those that would use the mental health claim to keep many of us from owning firearms: You'd have to incarcerate us. Because, again: If people are too dangerous to own a firearm, then they shouldn't be allowed near other people in society. Not have the ability to own rocks, scissors, knives, automobiles, flammable liquids, etc. Yes, it is a statement that many disagree with. I don't care. If you are deemed unfit to own a weapon, then you shouldn't be mixing with the rest of the "normal" members of society....for the safety of the others.
No comments:
Post a Comment