It is difficult to decide whether the media’s intellectual flatulence or the politicians’ hypocritical bombast is the more repellant reaction to the pointless deaths of the 17 high school kids at the hands of a madman. Both media and government are battening upon the deaths with the enthusiasm of hungry maggots, using the dead kids to advance their own interests.
From the Democrats rounding up brainwashed survivors to demonize guns and fire the local sheriff to the Republicans trying to impose arms upon teachers or impose armed guards upon schools, the only thing being omitted is common sense. Oh, and of course, honesty.
Never mind uncooperative reality: Whip up emotions and ram through your political goals before rational thought settles in, if it is ever allowed. We are watching classic lynch mob tactics from both sides.
Let’s consider: The shooters are madmen and/or Muslims, are they not? The FBI and the local sheriff are faulted for not arresting the shooter before he shot anyone; the FBI is regularly faulted for not arresting terrorists before they act. Never mind the thousands of suspicious posts, tweets, actions and appearances regularly presented to law enforcers by people who never harm anyone. Law enforcement folk aren’t better mind readers than the rest of us; they must react to facts, not to guessed-at intentions. Fire the Sheriff because he didn’t prevent the crime? No sheriff anywhere prevents much crime; all of them capture and imprison felons after their crimes. Maybe that will change when the tech provides mind reading but that isn’t now. Nor will we enjoy a world where intentions are punished before actions have occurred; too many of us will be punished.
Arm the teachers? You want to trust your kids to an armed group of such folk? I’d be more afraid of such a group than of the probability of a madman. Churches are shot up too; guess we’ll have to arm the clergy, right?
Posting armed guards at schools has issues too. They are expensive and would have little to do but sit there all day. The quality of interested talent seems a likely question. And schools are pretty jail-ish already, aren’t they? Too, will not a determined shooter find entrance anyway and a less determined one simply shoot up a church or picnickers at a park instead?
The elephant in this room of course is the U.S. founders’ intention behind the second Amendment: They wanted an armed public to keep their government afraid of mistreating them. It seems odd that even the defenders of gun ownership never seem to bring that into view, thought the founders wrote plainly about it.
The one area that may, eventually reward more investigation is the area receiving none at present: progress in medicine and law for dealing with mental health. Oh, and tack on some recognition that historically and today, a fringe percentage of Muslims are ready to pursue terrorism. That is not anti-Muslim; it is only fact and so should not be ignored. What should be done about it requires thought, not pretense. To his credit, President Trump has made this point, mostly ignored. He also said that he would have rushed in against the shooter unarmed; we hope he will be a little less excitable when he is considering our military …
We in the U.S. have made an increasingly violent society; we shall pay the price of that change as we have done before. And if we disarm the public, we will not reduce violence; we will only insure that allof it is perpetrated by criminals and government. That is inarguable; what should be argued is whether that will be an improvement over the present.