Wisconsin, Colorado Shootings A Failure Of Government
August 7, 2012 27 Comments
Over the weekend we had another mass shooting, this time at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin. Wade Michael Page, a white supremacist with ties to National Socialist groups shot up the temple killing six before being killed by police. Why Page targeted a Sikh temple is anyone’s guess since these people are few and far between and relatively harmless. Of course this has renewed calls for more gun control by liberals. There are ten murders every week in Chicago, nearly all of them committed by gang criminals using guns. Do you really believe that gun control is going to stop criminals from obtaining guns? It hasn’t worked in Europe, which has as many mass shootings as we do with more gun control, and it won’t work here.
What we had in Wisconsin is the same thing we had in Colorado with James Holmes. We had a failure of government. This is the same government that the left trusts to run health care, education and gun control (think Fast and Furious). Page was on the Feds radar because of his associations with white supremacist terror groups. He had been kicked out of the army. The Feds knew about this guy and barely monitored his activity despite being associated with domestic terror groups. How is this anything but a failure of government?
James Holmes also represents a failure of government. Holmes psychiatrist contacted university police weeks before he shot up a movie theater. She knew he was having psychological problems, she knew he was potentially violent. The psychiatrist did the right thing, the police don’t even know what was done with the information. How these cops can obtain information from a psychiatrist that her patient is crazy and violent and not investigate the matter or monitor the person is beyond my comprehension. This is a failure of government. These police didn’t do their job and a dozen people are dead and 58 were injured.
These cases highlight a couple of things. First, they show us that government cannot prevent every act of violence, even when they have information that suggest someone has a violent tendency. In short government cannot protect us from everything, we will in fact have to take care of ourselves at times. This is contrary to the government dependency sought by Obama and the far left. Second, these acts highlight the futility of government’s attempt to stop all terrorism. Government simply isn’t capable of stopping all acts of terrorism. They can obtain all sorts of information but if they are unable to piece it together or even do something with the overt information they’re given then the information is worthless in terms of preventing terrorism. Simply put government just doesn’t have the resources or ability to protect us from everything.
As such we must not be dependent on government to protect us from all acts of violence. We must be able to fend for ourselves. As such, gun control is the last thing we should have. If only someone at that theater had a concealed weapon. If only someone at the Sikh temple had a weapon. These acts of evil could have been stopped. Gun control would have served only to ensure that evil criminals have guns while complacent citizens are defenseless against evil. We cannot trust government to piece information together to stop these criminals before they act, we surely know we cannot trust government to respond to calls for help in a matter of seconds. We must be able to defend ourselves, government cannot be trusted to protect us.
About Steven
” If only someone at that theater had a concealed weapon.” Brilliant! The concealed gun would have had to be powerful enough to go through all of his bullet proof clothing. And the shooter would have had to be accurate enough to shoot in the dark and possibly aim at the shooter were he was unprotected. I guess if someone had a concealed AK-47 that would have done the job. All we anti-gun nuts are asking is that there be some reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of guns made solely for the purpose of mass murder. Owning a gun for personal protection is about the same as buying life insurance. Hopefully you will never need either. Whether or not having a gun in the house for protection is rational is an argument that could fill an encyclopedia with arguments.
Your use of the Sikh shooting tragedy to support your personal long term rage against the government is disgusting. The shooting wasn’t caused by some failure of the government. What you asking for is a police state to monitor anyone and everyone who has said or done anything that some government bureaucrat might consider threatening. What a wonderful contradictory world you live in! Full steam ahead on the Second Amendment with zero restrictions on gun ownership but you are ready and anxious to give up your 1st and 4th Amendment rights.
By the way, I support the NRA.
I don’t have the energy to rage against anything, much less the government. If you support the NRA then you’ll be joining them in opposing further restrictions on guns.
Actually, a bullet wouldn’t have had to go through the body armor James Holmes was wearing. Just suppose someone had been carrying a concealed weapon, say a .45 Auto. No, the bullet wouldn’t have went through the armor, but it would have probably knocked Holmes off his feet. At the very least, it would have staggered him and possibly given someone time to take him the rest of the way down. That would have been much more preferable than being shot like fish in a barrel.
Here is a news article that may explain why a rightwing extremist like Page was able to accomplish his mass murder:
“Analysts for the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security routinely monitor violent extremist Web sites of all kinds, including those attracting white supremacists, according to former officials of both agencies. But the department’s work on the topic has been criticized. In 2009, conservatives in Congress strongly objected to a department report titled “Rightwing Extremism,” which speculated that the recession and the election of a black president could increase the threat from white supremacists.
Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, withdrew the report and apologized for what she called its flaws. Daryl Johnson, the homeland security analyst who was the primary author of the report, said last year that after the flap, the number of analysts assigned to track non-Islamic militancy had been reduced sharply.”
Yes, I support the NRA and I am trying to get them to move to a more reasonable position concerning weapons that no individual needs or should have access to. If the NRA continues on its current insane path of automatic weapons for all it will eventually lose all public support and any influence it may have had over our lawmakers. At that point, public pressure could result in many, many restrictions on gun ownership.
Lets see. No rage you say. You work all day. Then spend every minute of your spare time writing a far-right blog that spews out the most extreme anti-government positions imaginable. You hate socialism. You believe, apparently, that it is the work of the devil. You believe that there is nothing in socialism that could ever be worthwhile examining for the good of any society. You spend every minute of every day whether you are at work or with your wife and children contemplating the evil of socialist, feminists, environmentalists, scientists etc. all those who in some manner challenge your fundamentalist belief in the Biblical. It does, however, take an awful lot of energy to rationalize one’s beliefs when they are so contrary to common sense and the knowledge of the world that we have gained over the past 500 years. Only someone who is an inspired true believer, a rage inspired fanatic would have the energy to live such a life.
If you’re trying to get the NRA to change then you really don’t support the organization.
Since when does the NRA advocate for everyone to have an automatic weapon? Do you realize automatic weapons are already illegal to own, unless you have a special, and very costly, permit from the government?
Oh, we all have to be in a fervent lockstep line together. There is no room for disagreement?
I think there is.
When you separate from a group on its major planks then no I would say there isn’t room for disagreement. Saying you support the NRA but you support gun control is like someone wanting to join a church so long as they don’t have to believe all that Jesus stuff. If you’ve missed the main point, you really don’t support the group.
“Do you really believe that is going to stop criminals from ? You just argued away, well, law.
Sorry, couple word commented out above:
“Do you really believe that /law/ is going to stop criminals from /crime/? You just argued away, well, law.
Looks like I was writing while you were clarifying. Law only stops people who would otherwise follow laws. People who have no interest in following laws really don’t care much about what laws are in place. Some of these people may be deterred by punishments but as we’ve seen throughout human history crime has always existed. We will never have a society free of crime. Thus it is imperative that individuals be allowed to protect themselves because we know the state is incapable of protecting us when crime is happening.
Law itself doesn’t stop all criminals. If it did Jesus Christ wouldn’t have needed to die upon the cross. If law was sufficient we wouldn’t have prisons full of criminals. The threat of punishment might deter you or me but it doesn’t deter everyone. The government is rarely at the site of a crime when it first takes place. They only respond during or after a crime has taken place. They cannot protect against all criminal acts, we don’t have the resources to have a police officer guarding everyone as though we’re the President.
You use “Law itself doesn’t stop all criminals.” as an argument against gun control. If you apply that logic everywhere, which we should be because laws “…don’t deter everyone”, the conclusion has to be “no laws”.
Law deters the overwhelming majority of people. But laws don’t deter criminals. So you can create all sorts of gun control laws and people who are interested in crime won’t pay a bit of attention to them. That’s why there are just as many mass shootings in Europe, with all of its gun control laws, as there are in the US. Criminals don’t follow the law.
Now through punishment we can deter more people from becoming criminals. If we executed murderers in a swift fashion fewer people would be willing to take the risk of murdering someone else. But simply having a bunch of gun control laws with measly penalties isn’t going to deter criminals. It will deter you and I but we aren’t interested in crime. Unfortunately it is you and I who won’t be able to defend ourselves if serious gun control is in place.
My only point is that your argument that we shouldn’t have gun laws because they don’t stop all gun crime can be applied to all laws – for instance, drug laws don’t stop all drug use and capital punishment doesn’t stop all murder – yet there aren’t a lot of (any?) conservatives arguing that this is a reason to legalize all drugs and abolish the dealt penalty. It is the exact same logic but, but for some reason it applies to everything except guns. I honestly don’t understand why.
Pingback: THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.
Right on ELTV, Why bother having speeding laws if it doesn’t stop everyone from speeding?
Wrong Steve, Jesus, did in fact, have to die on the cross. No matter what. No matter what we humans have done or not done. God planned it that way right from the start of creation. God had no choice. Jesus had to die on the cross otherwise our entire universe would make no sense.Some people have said about Jesus’ death that God is either a murderer or that Jesus committed suicide. I don’t know how to answer that. God must have planned Jesus’ death. I don’t think is was an accident of history of course. Did God have the right to sacrifice, to premeditate and kill his son? Or did God have no choice because he is restricted by some laws of the universe.That is, is there a power greater then God? Was the killing and human sacrifice of his only son, Jesus, the only way, the only means by which God could evict evil from creation? And what about when there is no evil-after the resurrection? Does that mean we will no longer have free choice? We can no longer choose bad over good. Will we need guns in the resurrected world? Would staunch members of the far right want to live in place that restricts free will and bans all guns? I cannot imagine that paradise is a place where God allows the shooting of humans and animals. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the lamb will not lay down with the lion as it is said in the Bible. In a lot of ways paradise has been described as a place that resembles a socialist utopia. Steven, you are going to be one unhappy camper in heaven! Remember, as it says in the Bible, there is no room in heaven for the wealthy-I think I have read it there. That does not sound like a free market environment. Steve, what kind of economic system do you imagine they have in heaven? You seem to have a pretty good handle on what’s what in the spiritual world.
LD: Yes, imagine, someone in the audience pulls out his automatic pistol and starts shooting. Then someone else pulls out his pistol and starts shooting at the second person who pulled out his gun thinking he is with the bad guy.. Pretty soon everyone is shooting at everyone else because everyone is screaming, running and pumped up on adrenal for fear of their lives and so no one can distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. When all the shooting stops there are more than 50 people dead. How many times have you heard about an incident in the armed forces or the civilian police force where they mistakenly shoot their own people? Not a great scenario.
I have to agree with you LD-until everyone carries a concealed weapon this country will continue to experience 35,000 gun deaths a year. I am rock solid sure that once everyone is carrying a concealed weapon our yearly gun deaths will plummet. Right? What we need is–MORE GUNS NOT LESS GUNS!!!!! Guns are not the problem.Not having a gun is the problem!
Really, I don;t think the answer is more people carrying more guns. Period.
You are actually funny, Larry. Your version of what could have happened had someone came out with their semi-automatic pistol is humorous, but not likely to happen. Do you realize that every state that allows concealed carry requires at least a little training before the permits are issued? I am personally acquainted with several people who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and I promise you, your version is nothing like what would have happened, had they been in the theater when Holmes started shooting. Do you really think it is preferable to let a shooter start shooting into a crowd of unarmed people, just to make sure someone else doesn’t pull out a pistol and return fire? I am sorry, but the logic of that escapes me completely.
I realize you are being sarcastic with your MORE GUNS NOT LESS GUNS!!!!! rhetoric, but are not being realistic or accurate. This is about our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. If a person feels the need to carry a concealed weapon, they should be allowed to. End of story, as far as I am concerned.
And everyone who carries is going to be as trained and rational as the several people you know? And in fact, you are saying MORE GUNS NOT LESS GUNS!!!!! is the answer. We are not talking about the heavenly sanctified reading of the Second Amendment. We are trying to figure out how we can reduce and hopefully eliminate the extreme violence caused by lunatics being able to easily purchase and possess weapons whose only intended purpose is to kill many people at once. These weapons are not needed for protection against criminals. They are not used for hunting. You say my scenario is not likely to happen? It has happened and will happen more frequently if the answer is more guns.
And I wonder about the difference in behavior between someone who is carrying a weapon and someone who is not. If George Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun would he have so aggressively pursued Martin? Probably not and therefore no shooting would have occurred. How many road rages turn deadly simply because one of the drivers has a gun? It happens all the time.How many women (mostly women) are shot and killed by a spouse, boyfriend simply because there happened to be a gun available? No gun-no shooting. Not saying that other violence wouldn’t have occurred but it is certainly a lot easier to seriously injure or kill someone with a gun.
Now even though the theater shooting is tragic and a big news story it pales in comparison to the thousands and thousands of people who are murdered each year by guns. Your image of that shooter in that theater killing compels you to argue that having your own personal gun is necessary. The six or seven victims of guns at that theater are a small fraction of the 35,000 gun deaths each year. Now 35,000 is a lot people with bullet holes in them. What happens when there are more and more people carrying weapons? Will some of those people become foolishly more aggressive like Zimmerman and the road rage killers? Will some of those people who carry shoot their spouses or girl/boyfriend in a fit of rage or drunkenness? Will some commit suicide because of a bout of depression or loss? Yes, all that will happen. And more people with guns will mean more gun deaths. Its kinda like throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out.
I actually would be in favor of more guns. Guns after all don’t kill people. Switzerland is one of the few Euro states that allows citizens to own guns. In fact, not only do the Swiss own guns but they’re required to own them by the government. They don’t have mass murders, likely because potential criminals think twice before shooting up a theater full of gun owners. I don’t support the government forcing gun ownership, but it’s pretty clear more guns is a good thing.
The Swiss, Steve? Seriously? The Swiss? This model is your evidence that more guns are better? That is a stretch, even for you.
I never said we should follow the Swiss, in part because I believe in the right of people not to own guns if that’s what they want to do. Government should neither require nor forbid or restrict gun ownership.
I didn’t say you were arguing we should follow the Swiss – I said, and I quote (myself), “This model is your evidence that more guns are better.”
Steve, how dare you compare the US to any socialist nanny state in Europe! We are different here. We are exceptional! Please do not use those countries as a model for how Americans should run their country. Next thing you know you will be advocating European style national health insurance and demanding the end of the death penalty! Haven’t you read Scalia’s decisions rejecting European influences on US law? Look at socialist Sweden-its an animal farm. England with its 50 years of national health insurance has become a police state-just as the folks on the right had predicted. Try to insult the Queen Mother on the internet in England and you will have a visit from Scotland yard. France-same thing: a veritable socialist prison state. You know though Steve, I do think that the Swiss are required to keep their guns at a local depository-you can check on that-not that it makes any difference what they do in that stinking socialist hell.
Swiss mass murder reported:
Just after 10am on September 28, Friedrich Leibacher made his way into the parliament building of the Swiss canton of Zug and unleashed a bloodbath. In total, 14 people were shot dead. Three of the seven members of the local Zug government were killed, and another was seriously wounded. Eleven of the 80 members of the canton council were shot dead and numerous others wounded. Two journalists were also badly injured.
Another mass murder reported:
9 October 2001
Just after 10am on September 28, Friedrich Leibacher made his way into the parliament building of the Swiss canton of Zug and unleashed a bloodbath. In total, 14 people were shot dead. Three of the seven members of the local Zug government were killed, and another was seriously wounded. Eleven of the 80 members of the canton council were shot dead and numerous others wounded. Two journalists were also badly injured.
NEW YORK TIMES GETS IT WRONG ON GUN CONTROL!
In his recent New York Times piece, David Brooks provides a psychological analysis of mass murderers, concluding that: “The crucial point is that the dynamics are internal, not external. These killers are primarily the product of psychological derangements, not sociological ones.” He goes on to make the astounding claim that better relationships and treatment can help to prevent mass killings.
Brooks’ naïve psychobabble allows him blithely to dismiss the role of public policy. He would have us focus our attention on the mind of each individual mass murderer, ignoring the issue of why the U.S. consistently produces so many mass murderers. There is no reason to assume that we have the highest gun death rate in the developed world because we have more deranged people, it’s just that our potential killers are so much better armed. Brooks misses the point of both disciplines when he so ardently embraces a psychiatry he doesn’t understand and so casually dismisses a sociology that actually can provide important data.
Psychiatry has no way to predict mass murder and no way to prevent it. Many mass murderers never see a mental health worker before going ballistic. Even those who do are as impossible to identify as needles in a large haystack. Violent thoughts are not uncommon among psychiatric patients, but vanishingly few will ever act on them. Future mass murderers are far too rare to be selected out of the crowd before the deed is done. Psychiatry can do wonders in treating psychiatric disorder, but strikes out in predicting or preventing violence. Brooks is misinformed to offer treatment as a solution — his other suggestion (better relationships) is even more fatuous.
Sociology first became a valuable informant of policy more than a century ago when Durkheim noted the statistical predictability of rates of suicide and violence and their systematic variability in different countries. It is impossible to predict which specific individual will kill himself or others (and certainly to say when and how), but easy to predict how many people will kill themselves or others in each country in any given year.
There is no indication that psychiatry can change the statistics of violence or the proclivity of the violent. We need to look instead to sociological data and their policy implications. Statistics tell us that we have a saturation of extraordinarily deadly weapons unparalleled in our own history and unique in the developed world — and simultaneously that we also have the highest rates of gun related injuries. The burden of proof is on those who want to refute the seemingly obvious causal connection and to deny its policy implications.
Brooks’ command of facts is as weak as his theories. According to Brooks: “People are trying to use the Aurora killings as a pretext to criticize America’s gun culture or to call for stricter gun control laws. This doesn’t happen after European or Asian mass killings.” He ignores the fact that after the 1996 Port Arthur mass murder, a conservative government in Australia overcame strident opposition (especially among its own conservative constituents) to replace lenient gun control measures with tight and effective ones. And Brooks should know that people in other developed countries don’t have to soul search about a gun culture because they don’t have one and don’t have to call for stricter gun control laws because they are already in place.
Homicide is as old as Cain. The capacity to kill had clear survival value, is built into the human genome, and will never be completely eliminated. But killing can be enhanced or contained depending on public policies. People will always find ways of killing people, but the number killed depends on the number and nature of the weapons available to the potential killers. It is a statistical numbers game and we stack the odds against the victims when we allow the killers easy access to semiautomatics and thousands of rounds of ammo.
Brooks’ should stick to expressing his policy views (he supports gun control) and drop any attempts at amateur psychologizing. His observations would be silly, but harmless, were he not such an influential voice. As it stands, Brooks facilitates the existing suppression of a serious policy discussion on gun control which allows a mindless spread of ever more destructive weaponry. Gun control shouldn’t be shouted down, or lobbied away, or rationalized with pop psychology. We need a sustained and serious debate on how best to deal with the public health problem of violent death, not wishful thinking.
Only women should be allowed to own and use guns. Men are simply too irrational, violent and unreliable to handle them safely. Perhaps we can amend the Second Amendment to prohibit all men from possessing firearms. I am absolutely sure that if that did happen our murder by gun rate would drop from 35,000 annually to less than a thousand. More in line with the civilized countries of the world. Why are the men of this country so violent and gun crazy? Not a good combination as our yearly gun slaughter demonstrates.
Good luck getting that amendment passed by Congress and 3/4 of the states.