Shortly after the Aurora massacre, The New York Times headlined that the atrocity was "Reviving Debate." What debate is the Times talking about? Five paragraphs into its story, the Times elaborated, "The nation was plunged into another debate about guns and violence." Actually, the Times, along with the other brain-dead liberals, wishes that the nation would be "plunged into another debate about guns and violence," but the debate is in the eyes of the beholders. There are now over 200 million guns in America. The time for debate was around 1900, and does anyone think that western cowboys, for instance, would have given up their guns easily? Perhaps among thoughtful people, the debates would never have taken place. Today Americans cannot even secure their borders. How are we going to collect all those guns? My guess is that if there is a debate, it will be among liberals. The rest of the country does not know what to do about public massacres. That is a problem. The liberals' solution is no solution at all.
Back in 1955, in Chicago, about the time of the famous Schuessler-Peterson murders, I heard a famous police reporter tell my parents that reporters of his era reported on such grisly crimes reticently. They did not reveal things that they knew might betray the investigators' plans to investigate the murder. And another thing -- they did not write much about the perpetrator of the crime once he was nabbed. They knew the creep and others like him were encouraged to undertake "copycat" crimes.
Right now, I fear that we may be at a point where copycats are planning to outdo Holmes and his colleagues. Let us leave them to sulk in their lonely cells. After all, there really is not much to say about them that is very interesting.
Contrast: David Cameron Suspends Vacation Over Foley Killing; Obama Heads Back To Vineyard | Christine Rousselle