It was obvious for a long time that the
Fort Hood shooter was trouble, but the government did not protect his fellow
workers from him. The
problem was not the gun laws; it was that government
did not do its job.
Of course, one cannot ignore the reports from Hasan's
colleagues and superiors about his conduct throughout his
career. While undertaking his residency at the Walter Reed Army
Medical Centre in 2003, he became known for his anti-American rants and calls
for his colleagues to turn to Islam.
The killer in the mass murder at a church in Florida should have
been blocked from getting a gun, but the military did not do its job by
informing authorities. The problem was not the lack of gun control or gun laws; it was that
the government
did not do its job.
On Monday the Air Force acknowledged it did not relay the
killer's court martial conviction for domestic assault to civilian law
enforcement that could have prevented him purchasing the firearms used in the
shooting.
It is clear that authorities and family knew that the killer at
the Sandy Hook school was mentally ill and should never have been near a weapon
– and that society needed protection from him. But somehow he had
access to these weapons. The problem was obviously not
the lack of laws.
Lanza struggled with mental illness, a history of
obsessive-compulsive behaviors and a fascination with mass shootings –
particularly the 1999 school shooting in Columbine, Colo., the report
said. Yet, none of the mental health specialists he had a record of
meeting with predicted he was capable of lashing out violently.
The killer of 17 in Florida last week was well known to
authorities, so why didn't a background check block this mentally ill person
from getting a gun? They visited his house over thirty
times. Isn't that enough? The FBI also received tips regarding this killer but did
not do its job.
Again, the law wasn't the problem.
Last week, a commander in the police department was shot and
killed in Chicago by a career criminal. Why was the career criminal on
the street?
But of course, the protesters, the media, and Democrats (who
always want more gun restrictions) use the victims to push their
agenda. No matter that many times, the problem has been that the
government wasn't doing its job of enforcing existing laws.
From the rhetoric that we hear after every killing, one would
think the U.S. would be number one in murders around the world, but we
are far
from it: "by the
normal measurement – murders per capita, the U.S. ranks on one scale at
99th. "
If we took out large violent cities like Chicago, the American
rate would even be lower. Chicago has strict gun laws and a high
murder rate. Houston, with similar demographics, has much looser
restrictions and a lower murder rate. So why is the solution more gun laws? Don't
facts ever matter?
Isn't the actual solution to get the known career criminals off
the streets and to destroy the violent gangs that are responsible for a
significant number of the killings – instead of more laws?
When Islamic terrorists commit violent acts, we are always
lectured not to stereotype Muslims. But when violent mentally ill
gun-owners commit atrocious acts, the immediate reaction is to stereotype
gun-owners, who are mostly nonviolent, law-abiding citizens. We are
always lectured about stereotyping and profiling, but somehow it is OK to blame
all gun-owners for the irrational acts of a few.
When an illegal alien kills someone, we hear very little about the
crime from the media or Democrats because that is just so inconvenient to the
agenda. When a person kills a person with a gun, we hear that one
death is too many – so why don't we hear that when someone let out by a
sanctuary city or state kills someone? Aren't all deaths and lives
important?
North Korea doesn't allow its citizens to own
guns. Does that make them safe?
In Nazi Germany, the guns were taken away. Did that
make the people there safe or make them sitting ducks?
I am 64 years old and have never been a gun-owner, nor have I ever
been a member of the NRA. But I understand that the founding fathers
understood the need for the Second Amendment to protect against tyrannical
governments like North Korea and Nazi Germany.
I do not feel
unsafe in my neighborhood or friends' houses when I know that my friends have
guns. I do feel vulnerable in sanctuary cities like Chicago that
have very strict laws.
Many elitists that push for more strict gun laws have guns
themselves, live in gated communities, or have security guards and bodyguards,
so shouldn't ordinary citizens have the right to protect themselves when almost
all are law-abiding people?
The media like to pretend they peddle facts, but this past week,
we saw the knee-jerk reaction, as many just repeated over and over again that
this was the eighteenth school shooting this year. It didn't even
sound truthful, but it was repeated continuously until it was partially corrected. My
guess is that most people still remember the number 18 and did not hear the
correction. The actual statistics are bad enough. They
shouldn't be exaggerated to push an agenda.
How about enforcing existing gun control laws, making sure that
criminals and mentally ill people are on lists for background checks, and
having sanctuary cities and states start enforcing laws that are on the books
before we pass more laws?
Here is a hint for the leaders at the FBI: maybe pay attention to
tips that may protect the people from violent, mentally ill shooters like Cruz
instead of targeting and spying on political opponents, chasing a fictional
Russian collusion story, and protecting guilty people like Hillary from
prosecution. The people would be better served and much safer.
