So this time it was a mentally disturbed individual with a legally possessed gun who shot up an airport terminal in Ft Lauderdale, FL, killing 5 people. And again, some are asking, "How did this happen, and how are we going to fix it?"
If we lived in an authoritarian society where there are visible police everywhere as well as many more unseen secret police, and a small army of informers to keep an eye on their neighbors, yeah, we might could have prevented this. Guns and gun ownership would be outlawed, and the mentally ill would simply be locked away. There would be no "due process". You would just be picked up one day off the street, and in short order find yourself in a gulag. End of problem.
But we live in a free society where people have rights. There are millions of guns in the hands of our citizens right now, and the Supreme Court has validated the 2nd Amendment concept that guarantees Americans the right to own them. The guns aren't going away, and even if a future, more liberal Supreme Court changes their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, there will be millions of people who will always say our Founding Fathers said it, SCOTUS be damned!
So to answer the original questions: How did this happen? An obviously mentally disturbed person did not get the help he needed, and he got hold of a gun. How are we going to fix it? We need to spend the money necessary to get the mentally disturbed the medical/psychological help they need, and we need to invest in a government-wide computer system that allows names of the mentally disturbed, wanted criminals, felons, those with restraining orders against them, etc, to be added (or subtracted) instantly.
They won't be able to legally buy a firearm, they will be singled out for searches, both of their body and their checked baggage, if they fly, or perhaps not even be allowed to fly at all. The same goes if they travel by train or bus. It certainly won't stop every madman, but it will go a long way. Right now this type system apparently doesn't exist at all, or if it does, is not kept current and properly utilized.
So, Mr/Ms Taxpayer/Citizen....your choices are to give up your liberties, spend the fortune it would cost to implement a better reporting system, or accept the fact that these things are simply going to happen. I'm pretty confident we won't choose the first or second options, so we may just have to accept the realities of living in the 21st Century.
Stay vigilant.
S
Another mass-casualty shooting, this time in Southern California. One of the shooters worked with many of those he killed, so "workplace violence", right? Umm, maybe. But he was also of the Muslim faith / political persuasion, had recently traveled to Saudi Arabia to pick up his bride (the second shooter), and started growing a beard upon his return, so "Islamic terrorism", right? Umm, maybe.
There are lots of unanswered questions, but regardless, the call for more gun control will intensify once again. The thing most apparent to me is that, even if the "gun controllers" get the new laws they want, they will still be disappointed.
Those who buy guns legally (with background checks) will still do so. (FYI, the guns the Cali shooters used were all purchased legally.) Those who buy guns without background checks will still do so. Those are the guns that will be used in most crimes, making the owners of those guns criminals. They're already criminals, so to them, what's the big deal breaking one more law?
Let's assume you could require background checks on all gun sales from this point forward, whether from a gun dealer or from an individual, and make it stick (which you can't). There are already somewhere between 200 and 300 MILLION guns floating around out there right now. Who owns those? Have they been background checked? This is reality, folks.
If the gun controllers think they will see any appreciable difference by requiring universal background checks in 6 months, or even 6 years, they are simply being delusional. It will likely take many decades for enough guns to be sold with checks to new, properly vetted owners to see any difference at all.
The reality is this: If there was ever an issue that will cause otherwise fine, upstanding citizens to resort to "civil disobedience", restricting their Second Amendment rights to "keep and bear arms" is it. In their minds, whether you agree or not, the Bill of Rights to our Constitution says it's legal to own guns, and as the Supreme Court has agreed, they wouldn't be breaking any law if they resisted. You can argue until you're blue about the definition of "well armed militia", they won't care.
If you make new laws that in effect outlaw certain types of guns, you've just opened up a whole new field for organized crime to capitalize on. It didn't work with alcohol back in the 1920's and 30's, and it won't work with guns today. Too many people already have them, and too many others want them.
So IMHO even if the gun controllers do get their wish, the effect on the number of future mass shootings will be virtually non-existent. If they want to try, go ahead. They will just be pissing into the wind. Don't expect any miracle results.
Please don't shoot the messenger.
S
