There’s little we can do to prevent another massacre
In this case, there probably is a policy which could stop mass shootings. But we are not going to implement that policy. And since nothing else is going to work, we are not going to pass a law that will stop these sorts of mass shootings. We may pass a law, mind you. But whatever we do pass, we will have more of these evil happenings ahead of us. …
What Lanza shows us is the limits of the obvious policy responses. He had all the mental health resources he needed–and he did it anyway. The law stopped him from buying a gun–and he did it anyway. The school had an intercom system aimed at stopping unauthorized entry–and he did it anyway. Any practical, easy-to-implement solution to school shootings that you could propose, along with several that were not at all easy to implement, was already in place. Somehow, Lanza blew through them all.
Perhaps we need to go farther. But how far? The one thing we cannot do, though this did not stop many people from suggesting it, is to ban “the types of weapons that make these shootings possible”. It is easy and satisfying to be for “gun control” in the abstract, but we cannot pass gun control, in the abstract. We have to pass a specific law that describes very specifically what people may and may not do. That means we need to carefully specify the features that makes these shootings possible. And unfortunately, the feature is . . . “fires metal pellets at high speed”.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Why do we protect infants but refuse treatment for the infantile?
theCork on December 17, 2012 at 11:59 PM
Well … since I consider the Left to be infantile …
OldEnglish on December 18, 2012 at 12:05 AM
Bullcrap. A simple redesign of rifle hand grips to incorporate them into thumb-hole stocks will stop mass shootings.
Well ok, removing a flash suppressor will work too, everyone knows that a flash suppressor in the wrong hands is as lethal as a hydrogen bomb.
Bishop on December 18, 2012 at 12:09 AM
How about fighting back?
Bulletchaser on December 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM
I wish writers would stick to subjects they at least have a clue about. The ignorance on display here drives gun nuts like me crazy.
There is plenty that can be done to prevent another tragedy like this.
First, abolish gun free zones. You really have to be a nitwit to think that having a bunch of people without the means to fight off an attack in one place and then advertising that they are disarmed is a good idea.
Second, fix the mental health system the ACLU and other leftist groups destroyed. It had serious problems that needed to be addressed but dismantling it was as stupid as gun free zones, with an outcome as predictable as massacres in gun free zones.
single stack on December 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM
This.
Armed teachers would have a huge deterrent effect, and if that deterrent failed it would save lives.
Rebar on December 18, 2012 at 1:12 AM
Yes, she missed a lot of options. But she covered a lot, too. As far as she went, I have no argument with her conclusions. They’re a lot better than the typical media commentators I’ve read since Friday.
Socratease on December 18, 2012 at 1:44 AM
I believe there are some things we can do. In most of the more spectacularly gruesome mass shootings, the shooter has had a mental illness that went untreated. There were warning signs in nearly all of those cases. I think we need a way to more closely screen people who might be at risk of having such a disorder. Simply taking guns away from everyone because of a few very sick individuals isn’t going to work. A determined person can still obtain one or use alternative means of mass killing.
It had been reported that Adam tried twice to purchase his own firearms but was denied both times, the last time being three days before the shooting. Should that have caused an automatic “cross check” to see if any other weapons were registered at the address and maybe trigger an interview with the owner of those weapons just to let them know that another member of the household had been refused permission to obtain a firearm and that maybe they should increase the security of their own weapons? Would such a visit have been enough to prevent this? In the case of the Aurora shootings, should the school have made law enforcement aware of the shooters change in personality? If such notification and a cross check that he had recently purchased a weapon had triggered a screening visit, might they have been able to head that off? I don’t know the right answer but I do know the wrong one. Penalizing everyone else isn’t going to work while continuing to ignore warning signs exhibited by people who commit such atrocities.
In the majority of these cases we have someone who was withdrawn, often seeming to be practically addicted to violent video games, few friends, and a recent change in personality. We need to identify people for screening and separate out the ones who are just a little strange from those with a potential for serious problems and treat them.
crosspatch on December 18, 2012 at 2:26 AM
It seems she missed this one in all of her Exhaustive Research on the Subject.
I guess no one tweeted that.
jaydee_007 on December 18, 2012 at 4:15 AM
There is no simple solution to a problem such as this. The young man was obviously insane/evil.
SC.Charlie on December 18, 2012 at 6:22 AM
How about making some type of military training a requirement for all school teachers? It would certainly bring back some discipline to schools.
SC.Charlie on December 18, 2012 at 6:30 AM
This was a long read, but a very good one and overall worth it.
I am all for arming staff in schools, maybe a vice principal or some administrator like that with the proper training. Of course this is not going to fly everywhere, but let red states experiment successfully with it. Given, the author did not address that possible solution.
Otherwise she does an excellent job of dissecting why other possible knee jerk solutions are not going to happen or going to work. I found it an honest analysis.
I’ve kinda been struggling with how I feel about the mental illness aspect myself. Like maybe there was a huge area for improvement there. But the problem is, I can’t see what. Yes it was clear this was not a normal person. But there are millions of such people in the world and very few become violent, so how can we justify treating all mentally ill like they are going to go on mass shooting sprees any moment? I hope more light is shed on this because I think we would all feel better thinking there is a way to see it coming, but other than attempting to buy gun 2 days prior, I haven’t heard of other warning signs of violence.
We can blame the mother, but so far I don’t see anything that justifies it. Accounts from people that know her make her sound normal and well adjusted to me. We can blame her for giving her son access to the guns, but we don’t know she did, he could have over powered her. And had there not been guns in the house I believe he would have stolen them or learned how to make homemade bombs on the Internet. At the end of the day, he’s a 20 year old adult, and there is only so much a parent of a mentally ill person can do and she probably did more than most could given she did not have to work.
Interesting I did not know the parents divorced in 2009, so the dad was present most of the time he was growing up. Still I haven’t heard too much about him.
Also I’ve heard very little about the medications he was on and any possible connection there. I’m wondering if that could be a big overlooked piece of the puzzle but I suppose I’m looking for answers like anyone else.
rose-of-sharon on December 18, 2012 at 7:22 AM
Maybe we could pass a law making it illegal to kill people.
Every few years, we lose a couple dozen kids supposedly to the right to bear arms. Every single year, we lose 1.5M kids to the perceived right of a woman to have an abortion. Why isn’t anyone talking about restricting that right?
Odysseus on December 18, 2012 at 7:24 AM
I don’t think teachers need military training, but yeah, some training beyond normal CCW training. Perhaps a couple “live sims” so that they get a little control/training when the adrenaline is pumping.
I don’t think mandating it would be necessary. Most teachers already have to pay to keep their teaching licenses/credentials up to day with classes and such. I’m sure enough of them would do the same to be able to carry in the classroom.
Every teacher doesn’t have to carry. Just enough of them to make schools less attractive as target zones.
Gun Free Zones are just Killing Fields waiting to happen.
ProfShadow on December 18, 2012 at 7:31 AM
Horseapples.
We can give our healthcare system the power and abilities it needs to lock up someone who is a threat to other people due to an incurable mental disorder. We can give lethal weapons to teachers and pray they actually hit the shooter when the worst happens.
There are things we can do. We just don’t have the balls to do any of them.
MelonCollie on December 18, 2012 at 7:56 AM
I agree with your second point but not your first. I haven’t read anything that would lead me to believe that Adam Lanza would have been identified as potentially violent due to a mental illness and locked up in order for his own safety or others. Even if the mental health system had the capability, it couldn’t lock up people just because they are mentally ill, but would have to be deemed violent. I don’t think Adam Lanza would have been before Friday. The problem is determining who is capable of being violent before they are actually successfully violent and that is nearly impossible. There are millions of weird or a little off in the head peope that never hurt anyone, but you never know, they just could any day.
I had the same thought at you when that article was circulating this weekend “I am Adam Lanza’s Mother” but the more I think about it the more I think that title is very misleading and unfair because the child in that article was very violent and a clear case of someone that should be institutionalized unlike Adam Lanza who I don’t think would reach that standard, from what I’ve read so far.
rose-of-sharon on December 18, 2012 at 8:21 AM
Schools are not the only place where we are having mass shooting, but they are the ones that certainly hurt us all the most. These children or young adults are just beginning their lives.
SC.Charlie on December 18, 2012 at 8:32 AM
In my hometown in South Carolina one High School has become so large that it does have a what you might call a police substation. They call it some PC name, but it would be better called a police substation.
SC.Charlie on December 18, 2012 at 8:36 AM
++++ THIS ++++
Why do even normal kids get away with *any* crap in schools? Because the do-good crowd has systematically removed the Threat of Penalty or Deterrence.
/.
CaveatEmpty on December 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM
I was afraid of my principal because I knew he had a wooden paddle and I still ended up in his office twice. If he’d had a gun strapped to his hip, I’d have been terrified and would’ve kept my nose clean.
Odysseus on December 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Here’s the other aspect of that: since kids in school don’t have any means to defend themselves from monsters like Lanza, we have a responsibility to provide security to keep them safe. There are armed guards both inside and outside of every courtroom I’ve ever been in to defend the adults inside. If we have an obligation to defend adults in public buildings where they aren’t allowed any means of self-defense, then it seems to me we’re doubly obligated to defend kids in public buildings who don’t have any means of self-defense. Their parents, older siblings, and in some cases other relatives and neighbors are responsible for their safety at home, but it seems nobody is responsible for their safety at school.
And regarding gun control: Even if you banned all semi-autos and magazines that hold more than five rounds, what good would it have done? Once the teacher was dead- and that could easily be achieved with a single-shot 12 gage or even a flintlock rifle – you wouldn’t need a high-cap semi-auto to slaughter five year olds. An axe, knife, sword, blunt instrument, or even bare hands could do it. So this goes back to the argument about security. Even if an outright ban on semi-autos and high-capacity magazines could be effectively implemented and there were no more of them available to the Lanzas of the world, they would still have the capacity to wreak carnage on young children who have no capacity to resist, and may not even have the presence of mind to flee in such a situation. The only thing that can stop them is somebody shooting back.
One other point: these “lockdown” procedures strike me as questionable. Wouldn’t it make more sense to throw the kids out the windows and tell them to run like hell in different directions? Yes, I know, they say there might be another gunman waiting outside, but a moving target is much harder to hit and herding them into the corner of the classroom just makes the killer’s job easier.
Walter Sobchak on December 18, 2012 at 1:26 PM