Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, April 20, 2007
Lorie Byrd :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Price of Freedom
by Lorie Byrd
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The phrase “the price of freedom” is often used when referring to the sacrifices of soldiers in battle to defend America’s freedoms. There is another price of freedom though. We paid it most recently in a very big way in Blacksburg, Virginia, but we have paid it many times previously, as well.

Some news outlets reported the Virgnia Tech shooting as the “worst mass murder in U.S. history." It was the most deadly school shooting in U.S. history, but certainly not the most deadly mass murder, and the distinction does matter in the context I am raising it.

The Jawa Report notes the Virginia Tech rampage was not only not the worst mass murder, it was not even the second, or third or fourth worst, but followed the 9/11 attacks (2,998 deaths), the Oklahoma City bombing (168 deaths), the HappyLand arson of 1990 (87 deaths) and the Bath, Michigan school bombing of 1927 (45 deaths), all claiming more lives than the Virginia Tech shootings (32 deaths).

One thing all these horrible murders have in common is that they were possible, at least in part, due to the fact that we have an open and free society. After the shooting at the Virginia Tech campus, and after any such horrific crime, one instinctive reaction is to want to do something in response to prevent it from ever happening again. In all the cases listed above, because the sites of the crimes were public places such as schools, office buildings, and night clubs, any such measure would include some sacrifice of our freedom. That sacrifice could be relatively unnoticeable, like installing more security cameras and instituting new security response procedures, or it could be more obvious and intrusive such as installing metal detectors and changing gun laws. Some changes might actually make us safer, while others could only provide the illusion of safety and, in fact, make us less safe.

This is the balancing act that goes on in a free democracy between the want and need to be secure and the desire to live in a free and open society.

My reminder above that this most recent shooting was not the most deadly mass murder in U.S. history was provided because I wanted to make the point that even all the lessons we have learned from previous, even more deadly incidents have not been able to prevent all such future attacks. Hopefully some of the measures taken following them have done some good, but as long as we live in freedom, we will be open to the threat of violence.

As more becomes known about the Virginia Tech shooter, there will be more arguments made that if only a specific gun law had been different or if only a medical privacy law that might have kept the information of the shooter’s mental history concealed were not in place, or any number of other things had been different, this horrible event might have been prevented.

Certainly we should examine the specifics of the recent rampage at Virginia Tech and seek to learn any lessons from it that might prevent future school shootings. In the short term, a likely reaction will be to strengthen security measures in our schools and public places, and to attempt to understand and treat the underlying reasons a person might commit such an insane act.

But, unfortunately, without being able to read the murderer's mind, there is often not much that can be done. Short of erecting maximum security schools, it is difficult to stop a madman determined to kill. That is a horrifying thought, but sadly it is true. These are senseless acts of cruelty that are difficult to prevent.

I am often amazed that there are not more frequent terrorist attacks in the United States considering the great freedom we enjoy. There is little that could stop a madman with a weapon (gun, bomb, or whatever it may be) intent upon mass murder. We enjoy being able to go shopping and to the movies and to eat in restaurants without being stopped and searched by security. Most Americans don’t want metal detectors in every school and church and other public gathering place -- we already have to deal with them at all the airports and court buildings. But we do want to feel safe.

In an episode of the television drama “Crossing Jordan” this week, one of the main characters was detained by the Homeland Security Agency for being a suspected terrorist. The HSA was portrayed as scary and ruthless, threatening the character with Abu Ghraib style treatment. It was an over-the-top, ham-handed portrayal, but no doubt captured the concerns of some. Even the loss of some rights and civil liberties extended to suspected terrorists is seen as a frightening and dangerous thing by many – even to some of those who see that loss as necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks.

The balance between freedom and security is often a difficult one to make and at times our desire to live in a free society comes with a high price. One of the things that makes our way of life so desirable, is also what makes us, at times, very vulnerable. Such is the case with anything worthwhile in life though.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Lorie Byrd is a Townhall.com columnist and blogs at Wizbang and at LorieByrd.com.

Be the first to read Lorie Byrd's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Lots of talk but action is needed!
ben Haggai wrote:
"It seems to me that this incident goes to prove the wisdom of the old Latim saying: "si vis pacem para bellum" (if one wants peace, be prepared for war). It proves how wrong is the commonly accepted "truth" that "violence only begets violence". Only the threat of violence begets peace."

I fully agree! However, I'm not seeing any action to force universities to allow the already-in-place "concealed carry"! In fact I just heard on the MSM that a university professor was fired for illustrating very simply how an armed person could have substantially reduced the death toll at VT. (Professor says "bang...bang...bang..."then student says "bang" and stops the sequence. The professor was soon after fired for this.)

There is a relatively simple and quickly implemented partial solution with ample empirical data (from 40 states) to back up its effectiveness. The data shows that concealed-carry laws have in the past, and can in the future, reduce the number of victims in these mass murder episodes.

We need a coordinated effort to bring pressure on ALL the universities similar in intensity to what was done to the nation to impose gun control laws during the 1960s thru 1990s! Except our effort should be to allow already established "concealed carry" on campuses and eliminate any exceptions in these laws for schools (including elementary and high schools)!

Lorie
Thanks for clearing that up. BTW, I am one of those who are not in favor of the Patriot Act, as many of the provisions are unconstitutional.

miscommunication
Liberty and dyerje, and some others, interpreted my column exactly opposite the way it was intended. The blame lies on me, obviously, for not being clear.

Liberty wrote: "The article is good, except she added this little part attempting to imply that it is fine and dandy to stomp on our Bill of Rights if it might make us a little safer. I call BS!"

Liberty then quoted this line from the column: "Even the loss of some rights and civil liberties extended to suspected terrorists is seen as a frightening and dangerous thing by many – even to some of those who see that loss as necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks."

I was simply stating that even some people who think the detentions at Gitmo and provisions of the Patriot Act are necessary, have concerns about the implications of what precedents might be set and how they might be applied to other cases. That is a fact -- that even some people who believe the Patriot Act and other measures are necessary, have reservations about them. I guess I should have been more specific.

As for the people who think the piece is trying to justify tougher gun laws, my response is "Huh?" I know I was not citing many specifics, but the point of the comparison of VaTech to 9/11 and various bombings, etc. was that even taking away every gun in the world (as if that were possible) would not prevent senseless mass killings by maniacs. There are things we can do, and that could have been done in the Va Tech case, to lessen the possibility of a similar incident, but unless we want a police state, people searched before entering every public building, etc., things like this, unfortunately will happen from time to time. That sucks, but that is the reality. There is no such thing as a guarantee of absolute safety in this world.

I said this in the piece, of the various things that might be proposed to prevent a future similar incident "Some changes might actually make us safer, while others could only provide the illusion of safety and, in fact, make us less safe." Those that might make us less safe are so many of the gun laws, like the one recently applied at VT keeping students and professors from having guns on campus. I was warning that even though the desire in the aftermath is often to "do something," that something could actually make for an even less safe situation.

I tried to get my point across, but it appears some just didn't get it. I guess I was a bit too nuanced. Thankfully, nuance is not something I do often.

we have an open and free society?
Are we free to defend ourselves? The government mandated Gun Free Zone disarmed everyone except the criminal. Too bad the 2nd Amendment was infringed because it made it possible for one psycho to kill 32 other people. Criminals use weapons to overpower their victims, makes more sense to support the 2nd Admendment and allow trained Citizens to carry a firearm for self-defense.

Respect life and defend it against evil. Carry a handgun for your own protection against evil because nobody else will be able to protect you and your family. Give yourself a fighting chance for Life, Liberty and Little Leah.

But ChairmanMao...
you just gave us a magic solution. Get a weapon.

I find it striking that every time something like what happened at VA Tech occurs, everyone blames the gun and wants to control "it". It's been said ad nauseum - guns don't kill people, people kill people. Even if there wasn't a gun available on the planet, there still would be murder, there still would be wars, there still would be acts of violence.

This debate reminds me of the Bugs Bunny cartoon Barber of DeVille - Bugs has a knife chasing after Elmer - Elmer gets an axe and chases after Bugs - Bugs gets a pistol and chases after Elmer - Elmer gets a rifle and chases after Bugs - Bugs gets a cannon and chases after Elmer, etc., etc. But note the irony. In no case in the above scenario was there a "weapon-free" zone (unless of course you consider that the public "stage" that this parody was being acted out on should have been "weapon free" but was not due to the fact that neither of the two were willing to "talk" about and work out their differences). when confronted with a threat - an even greater counter-threat was brought to bear.

Therefore, even at a young age, What I was watching was not only good comedy (Bugs Bunny cartoons were and still are the best) but also one of life's better lessons... when confronted with a threat, ones defense is determined by ones actions and ones ability to have the correct tool to provide that defense.

The price of ignorance....
....not the price of freedom.
The price of freedom is the defence of liberty - protecting the sovereignty and property of individuals. The decision-makers at VT took away that liberty.

The VT incident demonstrates the ignorance of protection as a substitute for the personal responsibility of defending one's life and property. There is no substitute for self-defence. No person, group of persons, or law can protect anyone.

Granting ignorance to the directors who chose to remove the self-defence option is the only polite excuse for them to assume responsibility for protecting their students. Will those decision-makes at VT now take responsibility for failing to supply adequate protection?

Those harmed on the VT campus paid the price of ignorance, not the price of freedom.

Mental Illness and other stuff
First: Persons with mental illness statistically commit less crime than those without.

In a dark alley you want to face a person with mental illness not a young black (i.e. Afr-AM) male.

Second: before the Baker Act people used to be put in institutions for life for things like having epilepsy. So give me a break.

Third: Since state institutions are protected by sovereign immunity they usually release nasty aggressive males in the hope they would end up in jail, so the institution doesn't have to deal with them.

Don't be surprised if Cho's psychiatric assessment really meant 'we don't want this guy here.'

A State Psychiatrist has no liability for releasing someone who then commits a crime.

Fourth: Treatment does not eliminate aggression it only sedates the person so it is less likely to escalate.

The point is; don’t expect a magic solution to protect you from violence. Do what legislators do –even those for gun-control- get a weapon.

The "benefit of tyranny?"
I dislike the formulation "price of freedom." It implies that being "less free" could have prevented not only this particular massacre, but some unarticulated category of crime.

This implication rests on the premise that it is even possible for humans to succesfully organize against the randomness of two things: human will, and circumstance.

The implication also sloppily supposes that decreeing things unlawful translates perfectly into exerting control over them.

Neither of these premises is valid. What IS valid is the historical evidence that when humans attempt to operate on these premises, the consequences are worse than the VT massacre.

The worseness is inevitable; its impact is a matter of degree, whether we look at the 100-150 million people who were "controlled" out of existence for their crimes of human will and randomness under Communism; the Jews "organized" out of existence by the zealously psychotic Nazi regime; the millions of his own people straightforwardly gassed, raped, and dismembered by Saddam; the millions of women to whom prophylactic measures against their "evil temptation" are applied under Islam; or the narcissistic societal autism of much of Europe, whose population is dying out in a paroxysm of Marxist materialism and self-reference.

The idea of controlling people's behavior by external means, to guarantee everyone's safety from every conceivable event, is a chimera. We humans don't have the power to do that, but we do have the power to commit atrocities in TRYING to do it.

Our best guarantee of safety is in the virtue, self-control, judgment, and prudent preparedness of the individual. Looking for answers in organized compulsion is making the first, irreparable concession to statism.

We could as well say that the Virginia Tech massacre is the "price of not enough abortions." Had there been one more, in South Korea, "none of this would have happened."

HB0069
WHEREAS: Guns kill people

WHEREAS: Gun control is the best option to eliminate gun violence

WHEREAS: Gun free zones have proven instrumental in preventing mindless act of murder.

THEREFORE: We the Liberal advocates of gun control being consistent with our beliefs will promptly move to:

-Permanently dismiss our gun carrying secret service protection and substitute them with peace activists.

-Declare the US Capitol a “gun free zone” and force all of our bodyguards to check out their service pieces at the door.

-Never again under any circumstances entrust our protection to firearms.

To: Freedom Toast
"Unfortunately, Americans are uncomfortable with mental illness; and, as a consequence it doesn't get properly addressed. People don't want to see it. Authorities don't want to act on it."

Not quite.

In the earlier part of this century, people such as Cho could have been committed to state mental hospitals rather easily. However, beginning in the late 1960s, a movement to "de-institutionalize" the mentally ill arose. For example, Florida's Baker Act, passed in 1972 and widely emulated, was pushed as a way of resoring civil liberties to the insane. The insane gained the right to refuse treatment, and involuntary commitment became much harder. In fact, an involuntary commitment could only last 72 hours. At that point, a hearing was to be held. If the committed person denied having suicidal thoughts or wishing to harm anyone, they walked.

Cho is just the latest example of how this idea, noble in principle, can backfire. Note that he was in fact held for a brief time in a mental-health facility, and released after a psychiatrist noted that he "denied suicidal ideation" and that his "insight and judgment are normal". In other words, Cho fooled a psychiatrist doing a cursory evaluation.

This is not due to us wanting to look away from mental illness, it's due to a segment of the population responding to past abuses of the mentally-ill by deciding that these individuals must be allowed to have rights that they are not fully capable of exercising.

The price of freedom
Much has been said about the issue of "Mental Illness" in this shooting

I am married and my wife is "bi polar" or what was called Manic Depressive disorder. Our society has placed little value on those who suffer mental Illness especially in providing medical care.

Every health insurance policy we have had in our 40 years of marriage has placed a limit on her mental health care. Our current policy allows for 3 visits to her psychiatrist a year (limited to 1/2 hr each) and allows for a total of 100 days in a hospital in a lifetime. However there is no limit on her chiropractor's visits. This has always been the case

BOYCOTT NBC
One aspect in this tragedy is the NBC complicity resulting in the broadcast of the "exclusive" tapes. Below is the letter I’ve written to Steve Capus, President of NBC News.

I would urge those reading this to post it on to as many web sites as possible and forward it to others, urging them to do the same.
______________________________________________

Mr. Capus,
Last night I was informed of your decision to broadcast the “Exclusive” video and accompanying rant, mailed to your news office by the deranged individual responsible for VA Tech shootings. I refused to view it and all subsequent NBC coverage of this event, as I realized your decision to broadcast the tape; being entirely self serving, only facilitated this persons agenda, by giving him the public platform he desired, while encouraging others to follow suit. In allowing him to achieve this ultimate agenda, you are culpable. Subsequent events confirm this. Within days following the event, others seeking similar notoriety, have made threats to schools around the country. Why? It’s not just that they are deranged. By similar acts, they achieve International "recognition" and “fame”, due to news media executives who are thoughtless and stupid enough to broadcast their pictures and rants; thus providing the inducement they need to carry out their plans. You facilitate their warped goals. If there are copy cat incidents, encouraged by this notoriety, it’s Idiots like you who will share some of the responsibility. Your shortsighted decision to broadcast the tape was based on solely on your quest for rating. Your greed and indifference is despicable. Well, you got your ratings. And I suspect greed and indifference are integral parts of your character.
Normally, I write letters that are civil and polite, regardless of the circumstances. My upper-middle class background taught me to be that way. My education and subsequent professional career reinforced this requirement for civility and politeness: (in most cases). However, in your case I must make an exception. Your monumental stupidity causes me to tell it like it is. The truth is, you’re a reprehensible self-centered greedy little prick. You could care less about the likely result of such an ill-conceived decision. The consequences should be evident to any intelligent person. But as the President of one of the largest news broadcasting companies in the world, your complicity in the agenda of this deranged person, by airing his tape, is INEXCUSABLE! This letter will be published on numerous blogs with the recommendation that NBC be boycotted. No American with any intelligence or sensitivity should watch your net work. And the NBC board of directors should fire your sorry dumb a*s for your reckless and callus disregard. And that “sir”, is about as polite as I can be. F**k you and your ratings. .Don’t like my tone? Too bad. You’re welcome to contact me and discuss it. But we both know you won’t. Most likely, the sycophant admin assistant you hire to read your mail won’t show this to you. Media a*s holes like you care only for ratings, with total disregard for the consequences, and place themselves above public opinion. But perhaps the opinion of the NBC Board of Directors who will receive copies of this letter may get your attention.
BOYCOTT NBC!

violence completes the partial mind
In this tragedy, too much emphasis is being misplaced on blaming the victims' lack of firepower and fortitude. What we witnessed was the destruction and self-destruction of a mentally sick person. There were many warning signs and there were many opportunities for prior intervention.

Unfortunately, Americans are uncomfortable with mental illness; and, as a consequence it doesn't get properly addressed. People don't want to see it. Authorities don't want to act on it. Politicians don't want to fund it. States don't want to fund it. Insurance companies don't want to cover it. Consequently, we have these walking time bombs in our midsts, and they do go off with terrible damage to themselves and others.

Ron Paul: More Guns Will Deter Shootings
"Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has a simple solution to future shooting massacres such as the one that ripped apart Virginia Tech university Monday: more guns.

"People are a little more cautious if somebody might have a gun there," the GOP presidential candidate told Politico reporters Tuesday. "A concealed gun carried by a responsible person -- that might have ended the problem that they had at Virginia Tech with one person being killed or two people being killed."

Echoing the views of many Americans, he sees calls for restriction on guns as an affront to freedom. The libertarian-minded Texan is one of the most outspoken defenders of gun rights in Congress. Since the obstetrician was first elected to Congress in 1976, he has never voted for a bill restricting gun ownership. And he said the tragedy in Blacksburg, Va., could have been prevented if the school allowed students and professors to carry concealed weapons on campus."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3556.html

Control !!!
The killing of innocent people has gone on for thousands of years, and for what ever reason history should show that any weapon can cause harm, so for the left to think that more regulations will stop the carnage from happening is again missing the point.The people who do these evil acts in most cases never accept any personal responsibilty and find blame for their actions.We are the problem for what happens and we alone, so do we as a civil society accept responsibility or as the perpetrators of these evil acts find something to blame.I come from an ara of common sence and personal responsibility and that I alone accept blame for my actions and that my problems should not be taken out on others for any reason.Our society does not teach discipline or personal responsibility and from our own Government/Politicians the Media,TV,Movies find plenty of reasons and motives for what we do but little personal responsibility and acceptance for our own actions, what happened to the buck stops here,or the traditional values we learned that we accept responsiblity for what we say or do.The liberal responce to control or regulate guns will not teach personal responsiblity or acceptance for ones actions and will continue to find blame for, instead of acceptance for our personal actions.

Question
Elisabeth, you try to make some good points, but where was your voice when the thousands of innocent Khurds were being slaughtered by Saddam as He tryed to eradicate a whole race of people? Also we are not the only non Iraqis who are causing the deaths you speak of. Where is your outrage at Iran, Syria, and the numerous others?

BrianR
The article is good, except she added this little part attempting to imply that it is fine and dandy to stomp on our Bill of Rights if it might make us a little safer. I call BS!

"Even the loss of some rights and civil liberties extended to suspected terrorists is seen as a frightening and dangerous thing by many – even to some of those who see that loss as necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks."

Lorie
"Even the loss of some rights and civil liberties extended to suspected terrorists is seen as a frightening and dangerous thing by many – even to some of those who see that loss as necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks."

You betcha, Lorie. It is called the Constitution of the United States of America. Apparently, you missed studying the warnings of our Founding Fathers, who told us NEVER to give up liberty for a little temporary safety. NEVER.

"The balance between freedom and security is often a difficult one to make and at times our desire to live in a free society comes with a high price. One of the things that makes our way of life so desirable, is also what makes us, at times, very vulnerable. Such is the case with anything worthwhile in life though."

Yes, if we want to be free, we sometimes will have such incidences as VA. Tech. However, I will point out that this incident occurred in a gun free zone. If the inhabitants were allowed to bear arms, do you really think this travesty would have been nearly this bad? I think not.

No, we should NEVER just let someone talk us out of suspending parts of our Bill of Rights under the guise of keeping us safe. Please remember one of the main intentions of our Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution... it was to CONTROL GOVERNMENT so that it could not get out of hand and become tyrannical. They understood that man always seeks to obtain more and more power and they sought to "bind them down with the chains of the Constitution".

You should also remember that the biggest mass murderers in history have always been governments. While you're at it, remember the real reason the 2nd amendment was written. Are you so sure it is wise to willingly hand over your liberty to this same group of people under the guise of keeping you safe?

To Ben Haggai
Ben, while I sympathize and agree with your posting, you and I, being older than most of the posters, only remember when common sense ruled. Nowadays, even with its history of military schooling, Va. Tech not only failed to properly guard its campus, and warn its other students about the first attack, but in its one earlier chance to have allowed students and faculty to arm themselves (legally), the idiot school authorities not only railed against the proposed legislation allowing legal firearms, but when the legislation failed, congratulated themselves and bragged that now everyone there would feel safe. So much for common sense. So much for feeling safe. In fact, this campus, like most other colleges and other schools nationwide are now places of "conflict resolution" and solving problems through talking. I don't think the shooter was in a mood to talk, do you? And, Ben your apt quote of the Latin phrase is simply not acceptable in today's liberal world where everything is done through talk, a la Nancy Pelosi. Ben, let's face it, we're in deep doo doo.

Bill "Freedom"
Bill, you were correct in saying "If one, just one, person in that first classroom had had a gun or some other means of self protection fewer might have died." Laws taking away self defense by the general population makes only the criminals and nutcases safer.

VT was only the most recent example of that. If law abiding citizens had been allowed to have guns available in that building, then there would more than likely have been far fewer deaths. IF it would have happened since the shooter would have known that he might have faced an armed response. But as it stood, the shooter knew he would not face any guns before he had done what he wanted to do.

The liberals and the anti gun crowd are part and parcel in wanting to remove guns from the general population. And when you look at the liberal agenda, you know why. The liberals think they know better than anyone else how a person should live and think. But forcing their agenda down your throat is not so easy if you are armed and can resist the thought police. So they have to disarm the public. It matters not to them that criminals would always be able to get weapons. They just want the general public to be helpless.
THAT is the liberal agenda.

Killing Fields provided by gun control
Whay did the killer have unarmed victims? Some will call for "more gun control" but it is gun and people control done by government that provides killers large numbers of unarmed victims as easy prey.
Decades ago, postal carriers had a 45 in their mail pouch and nobody "went postal." But the postal workers have been disarmed and we now have "postal" as a word that describes a killer.
VT was very proud of their anti-gun position and work hard to make the campus "gun free" by disarming the students and faculty. Their "stick" was expulsion or firing, since Virginia law did allow holders of a CCW permit to legally carry a gun.
No gun law can prevent madness or rage, but a civil rights law that honors the meaning of the "right to keep and bear arms" can and has stopped killing sprees everywhere it has been tried.
Self-defense is the essential part of freedom, governments should not provide "killing fields."

Freedom
The title is misleading. The only person "free" to be armed on campus was the one who acquired illegal guns. Those who had a legal right to protect themselves in the state were denied the right on campus. If one, just one, person in that first classroom had had a gun or some other means of self protection fewer might have died. It was the loss of freedom that accomplished so many deaths not the fact of freedom. Bill D.

Almost....
A thoughtful article that almost makes a good point.

On the same day as the tragedy in Virginia, over 180 innoncent Iraqi citizens were killed.

We seem to only react when the carnage is within our borders.

Virginia Tech
When I lived in Virginia, 60 years ago, Va Tech was known as a "military school", which it was true until 1964. It surprised me that none of the guards (where there guards around?) in that "military school" were armed or able to resist that madman. It seems to me that this incident goes to prove the wisdom of the old Latim saying: "si vis pacem para bellum" (if one wants peace, be prepared for war). It proves how wrong is the commonly accepted "truth" that "violence only begets violence". Only the threat of violence begets peace. Had thad son of an ill-behaving mother known that some guard might just shoot back at him, he might not have felt so free to do what he did. But then madness is madness, and such people instead of just being "advised to seek counselling", should just be put away, and be given adequate mental treatment. He had shown all signs of being mentally ill. Why was he allowed to go on? Where are the hospitals for the criminally insane? Do they still exist? I speak as someone who has been away from the USA for 50 odd years.

Is The Price Too High?
The Va Tech shooting was the worst school shooting of all time. 9/11 was not a shooting, nor were the other events cited by the author. It wasn't the worst catastrophe of all time, but it was bad enough -- and then some. Is the price too high? That question is called thinking the unthinkable. Every once in awhile it's good to think that way.

steve

Excellent Points
but why does almost everyone I know respond to my making them with a gunslinger-on-a-board gape? I have an ominous explanation.

Most people today at least partially buy into the notion that they shouldn't be offended, let alone potentially shot in a random act of violence. A nation of people who can't even take a well aimed verbal barb aren't likely to buy into Lorie's argument, no matter how much sense it makes.

Conclusion: Until we once again become a nation of sturdy doers instead of pasty whiners, efforts to eliminate guns will have a disproportionate audience.

Excellent, Lorie
Very well done.

I reach many of the same conclusions but in a different way in my new essay "Guns and Government" on my blog.

Just click my name.


You don't secure places....
...you secure yourself.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.