I find this type of argument about the futility of gun control very compelling - and I struggle to understand those who do not immediately see the clarity of thought behind it, and the pure practicality of the advice:
Taking guns away from single women who live alone and other law-abiding citizens without mental illnesses will do nothing about the Chos, Loughners, Holmeses or Lanzas. Such people have to be separated from civil society, for the public’s sake as well as their own. But this is nearly impossible because the ACLU has decided that being psychotic is a civil right.
Consequently, whenever a psychopath with a million gigantic warning signs commits a shocking murder, the knee-jerk reaction is to place yet more controls on guns. By now, guns are the most heavily regulated product in America.
It hasn’t worked.
Even if it could work — and it can’t — there are still subway tracks, machetes, fists and bombs. The most deadly massacre at a school in U.S. history was at an elementary school in Michigan in 1927. It was committed with a bomb. By a mentally disturbed man.
How about trying something new for once?
That's Ann Coulter from her latest column "Guns Don't Kill People - The Mentally Ill Do". As with everything she writes, it's worth a read.
Here's a thought experiment I like to try: imagine a world where not a single firearm exists, yet the conditions that breed violence do - the depression, the anger, the desperation, the isolation, and especially, the medication.
What then? Well, we would still have the same level of depression, anger, etc. No change there. And since lots of research points to the depression, anger, medication, etc. as the main driver in the violent and suicidal behavior we are focused on eliminating, it seems obvious to me that the violence and suicide would continue with little or no change.
Internalized psychotic rage doesn't just go away by passing a few laws. Who would claim that it does?
So how do we fix anything by taking away a tool? Same level of depression, anger, and isolation. I try to understand how this point gets lost. I can't.
How do we not see, as a nation, that we have got a serious social and cultural problem on our hands with young males driven to desperate acts of violence by ... what? Well, that is the $64,000 question isn't it?
Video games? Medication? Feminized schools and culture causing feelings of isolation and anxiety in young males? Some or all of the above?
Shouldn't we be talking about that, first and foremost, instead of (or in addition to) guns? Something is not right here.
To really drive this home, is the pro-gun-control side really OK with letting our young males continue to suffer through the anger, the depression, the isolation, as long as they don't have access to legal guns (never mind illegal guns)? That's a little harsh. Where's the caring and compassion for people who need help, especially young males? Are they "less equal"? It sure seems that way to me.
We should define two goals, not just one: helping our young males thrive at a higher rate in our society, and reducing violence and suicide rates that impact society at large. The first would help with the second.
But all we're talking about is guns.
We cannot get to the right answers and fix not just the violence and the death of innocents, but also our wayward young men, if we don't start by asking the right questions and defining what the problem is, and what it is not.