Some deranged young man with grievances against the world and women in particular went on a rampage, stabbing his three Asian roommates and shooting three other people, randomly, shortly after he posted a manifesto detailing his pain at society and the motivation for his attacks. In short, women didn't want to date him, so they had to die. Sadly and ironically, four of his six victims were men. His own parents were trying very hard to locate him at the time of the attacks, fearful that he was going to do what he ultimately did. Even more sadly, the police had approached him a few months ago about some of his postings and he conned them into believing that it was all a misunderstanding.
Speaking largely from grief, the father of one of the victims, Chris Martínez, gave a statement to the press wherein he blamed craven politicians and the NRA for his son's death:
Given that his son was gunned down in such a random, senseless and tragic way, I completely understand his grief. Yet his complaint rings a little hollow.
First of all, three of the dead were killed with a knife. If Mr. Martínez were approaching this in a balanced way, he should be indicting Wusthoff, Henckel and Chicago Cutlery for producing knives. Apparently, the killer also ran people over with his BMW, so imports from Germany should stop forthwith.
Second, the guns were all legally bought and legally registered. The guns didn't drive themselves around and shoot innocent people, a deranged and seriously mentally ill person used them to commit the crimes. How the NRA has any culpability for the crimes committed escapes reason.
Mr. Martínez may have a point, however. When he mentions craven politicians he's getting closer to the truth. Craven politicians who are gutless and spineless refuse to address the real reason behind this and other shootings.
I very brief review of the more notable mass shootings in recent history reveals that in several of the shootings, mental health played a key role in the incidents. In the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007, the Tucson shootings in 2011, the Aurora, Colorado shootings and the Newport, Connecticut shootings in 2012, and this past weekend's shootings all involved mentally disturbed people who obtained weapons, legally, or stole them from people who owned them legally (in the case of Adam Lanza, the Newport shooter). Other shootings involved people who became unhinged because of job loss, lack of promotion, car repossession or marital discord. The underlying problem is that of mental health.
Where craven politicians enter the argument is that politicians are the ones who refuse to draft legislation that would allow municipal, state and federal governments to exchange information about mentally disturbed people who should in no way be allowed to purchase or possess guns. The argument usually trotted out is the amorphous privacy rights issue. Thanks to the late Justice William O. Douglas, the concept of a penumbra of privacy rights -- found nowhere in the Constitution, by the by -- pertains to every U.S. citizen. That being the case, how can the government violate that right by sharing mental health records? This is the same set of people who see no problem with sharing registration information between governments for people who are law abiding citizens merely exercising their rights under the Second Amendment.
I could hash out the syllogism as to why society's right must trump individual's rights to privacy and give countless examples of how and why this has already been done countless times, but instead I'll ask a question: If we don't share mental health records, discreetly, with gun sellers and government agencies charged with monitoring gun sales and ownership, are we not putting at risk innocent people whose lives, and therefore penumbras of privacy, could be threatened by mentally disturbed gunmen? Put another way, is not society's interest in safety superior to a sick individual's right to own a gun?
Before anyone tries to claim the moral high ground, consider this: We already deny licenses to blind people, to infirm people, to people who cannot safely operate vehicles. Why is this any different? Because we're denying rights based on mental health? Is anyone seriously trying to argue that there are some mentally disturbed individuals who should be cleared to own firearms? What's more, if a person is denied the right to drive a car or own a gun, is there any real discredit or defamation by virtue of the fact that a mentally disturbed person is denied a license? It's not like they'd be branded with a scarlet letter.
The silliness has to stop now. If this act had been committed with weapons illegally obtained or illegally owned, and the NRA had supported unfettered access to weapons, it'd be one thing. But that's not what happened here. Mr. Martínez may be speaking simply out of grief, or he may be trying to further an agenda. Yet part of what he said rings true: Politicians have to engage their testicular fortitude and ensure that mentally disturbed individuals don't gain access to firearms. Their privacy rights are not superior to society's right to be safe. Enough is enough already.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment