Sorry to butt in on this conversation. I think that the problem that we are all trying to solve is that of crazy (dare I say "evil"?) people killing other people. I would think that, if we are truly concerned about solving that problem rather than simply grinding axes about what ever side we stand on any particular issue, we would first want to determine whether any action we support would have any measurable effect on solving the problem. For example, for those who think banning or restricting certain types of guns would help solve the problem--is there any emperical evidence to support that position? We have a track record to look at, both at the state level with the thousands of "gun control" laws that already exist and, more to the point, at the federal level. For the statistical gurus out there, is there any evidence at all that the previous ban on "assault weapons" had any measurablle effect on crime committed with guns? Shouldn't we care about whether whatever actions we take or support are likely to have an effect on actually solving the problem at hand, based on all available evidence, before we waste our time and energy on projects that may have no effect at all on the problem we are trying to solve? I think that there are a number of areas that would be worthy of exploration if we are truly concerned about solving the instant problem, and not just feeling good because we are "doing something," whether or not what we are doing is going to have any effect on the problem.
For example, I heard on the news today that the shooter's parents were divorced. In the early '70's, most, if not all, states revamped their divorce statutes and adopted "no-fault" divorce. The effect on society of treating marriage as nothing more than a simple contract (really, not even as strong as a simple contract--if you breach a contract to, say, build a house, there will typically be some consequences, but if you breach the marriage contract, oh well, it just didn't work out and its nobody's fault) has been huge. About 50% of marriages, many involving children, now end in divorce. There is a raft of empirical evidence of the detrimental effect this has had on our society on numerous levels, and particularly on the children involved, especially when custody is at issue. Should we maybe take a hard look at how we treat the institution of marriage and the nuclear family and determine whether the way we currently treat that institution is contributing to creating the defective morons who go out and commit these heinous acts? On a related issue, does anybody else think that the rising number (almost 50% now in the "white" community, significantly higher among "people of color") of children born out of wedlock might contribute in some measure to the problem we are dealing with? I was in court this morning dealing with a support case where a mother had 6 kids by 6 different fathers. The sad thing is, this is not all that unusual. Any thoughts about the chances that these kids are going to be the good, stable, people we would like to have in our society, who would never think of just going out and slaughtering a bunch of people? I am just asking whether anybody else thinks that an exploration of these issues, and dealing with them, might be more productive in actually solving the current problem we are facing than screaming "we need more gun control laws!" Harder, I am sure, but maybe more effective.
And, while I am at it, where is the ACLU on this? They, and other organizations of like ilk, have done everything that they can to eradicate any mention of God or religion or religious values from the public square, most of the time on the theory that any such thing constitutes an "unconstitutional government endorsement of religion." You all know what I am talking about--no nativity scenes in public places, Ten Commandments monuments and plaques forcibly removed from city halls and schools throughout the country, lawsuits to remove the words "under God" from the pledge of allegience, and on and on ad infinitum. In the city where I practice, they had to take down a STAR, yes a simple star, from the courthouse, and there is no longer any Christmas tree in the hallway anymore--"too religious." Again, I ask where the ACLU is on this recent tragedy. I see govenment officials, right up to the President himself, attending prayer vigils in government buildings to pray for the victims and their families. Doesn't help under the constitution that many times these are labeled "non-denominational," the Supreme Court has ruled many times that endorsement of any religion over non-religion is as unconstitional as an endorsement of one religion over the other. Just wonder why the ACLU is not making as huge of a hue and cry over our elected officials participating in these prayer vigils, offering prayers, etc., as it does over, say, kids in schools singing Christmas songs in their schools during their "holiday" plays. Seems to me it would be logically consistent for them, but maybe its just too sensitive an issue for now.
I think we have a lot of problems at the very roots of the society we have now created that we are going to have to take a hard look at if we are truly interested in minimizing the number of kooks that we produce that would even entertain the thought of going into a school and shooting a bunch of kids. The real question is, are we willing to do this? Or do we want to continue to focus on whether we should sell 10 round magazines or 30 round magazines, or black guns or guns with furniture, or no guns at all, and other panaceas that make us all feel like we are really doing something, but go nowhere to genuinely address the society that we have created, and the problems that go along with it.
