Search This Blog

Friday, April 12, 2013

Gun laws revisited

Ann Coulter is good at research, and always presents the data to back up her claims. Not so the Democrats who oppose her and Republicans in general. Take this from Coulter's weekly article:
For most of the 20th century, from 1900 to 1970, there was an average of four mass public shootings per decade. Throughout the '70s, as the loony bins were being emptied, the average number of mass shootings suddenly shot up to 13. In the 3.3 decades since 1980, after all the mental institutions had been turned into condos, mass shootings skyrocketed to 36 on average per decade. 

Mass shootings don't correlate with gun ownership; they correlate with not locking up schizophrenics. 

Mental illness was blindingly clear in the case of Seung-Hui Cho, who committed mass murder at Virginia Tech. Jared Loughner showed signs of schizophrenia for at least five years before he shot up the Tucson shopping mall. James Holmes was being treated for mental illness long before his massacre at the Aurora movie theater. It was clear to Adam Lanza's mother -- nearly the only person who had contact with him -- that he was mentally disturbed and had violent fantasies. (Three-quarters of matricides are committed by the mentally ill.) 

We can add paranoid schizophrenic One L. Goh, who committed a mass murder at a Christian college in California last year, and the Muslim Army major, Nidal Hasan, known to be crazier than an MSNBC host, who killed 13 and injured 30 in a "gun-free" area of the Fort Hood Army base a couple years ago. For hundreds more examples of the mentally ill committing murder, read E. Fuller Torrey's book, The Insanity Offense: How America's Failure to Treat the Seriously Mentally Ill Endangers Its Citizens

But Democrats simply will not address the one thing that is screaming out from all of these mass murders, which is that they were committed by crazy people. 
Why? Because they don't want to stigmatize the mentally ill. I can respect that, but they go too far if they all they actually accomplish is to stigmatize them further by refusing to distinguish between different kinds of mental illnesses. Most of them are harmless to the public. Some kinds are most definitely not, and the public should be aware of that - and they're not. Political correctness is a disease in cases like this.

The real, existing stigma (aided by Democrats) is to not talk about any mental illness at all. Ignorance doesn't help anyone here. I am willing to bet that the public is also ignorant that the liberal ACLU loves to free the criminally insane so that they can terrorize the streets before being slapped back into prison. Talk about a waste of taxpayer dollars, human life, and energy. There is a reason mental institutions existed before the 70's, and it wasn't because of any stigma: it was for public safety!

I grant you that more people were committed to them than were dangerous to the public because the burden of caring for the mentally ill can be heavy for families depending on the nature of the illness. But is that a bad thing? Democrats' policies always support taking children away from abusive or otherwise inadequate families. I don't see that this is so different if the family wills it and can pay for it, with the state helping pick up the cost of institutionalization as necessary.

Let's face it: some of the criminally insane are especially dangerous to the people they're supposed to be the closest to. Adam Lanza is merely one example. I'd much prefer that the state care for the criminally insane to prevent them from committing crimes rather than waiting for them to be arrested having already cost human lives, and then let them out of the system to do it all over again.

And now Coulter's conclusion:
Meanwhile, the only target of Democrats' gun proposals -- legal gun owners -- are less likely to commit violent crimes than others. To the contrary, armed civilians justifiably kill about 1,500-2,800 felons a year, compared to 300-600 legal killings by the police. Responsible armed citizens protecting us from violent criminals should be subsidized rather than taxed and harassed. 

After five mass shootings by deranged lunatics, even liberals know that the only policy -- apart from concealed-carry laws -- that might have stopped these shootings are laws permitting the institutionalization of the mentally ill. 

That's why they keep claiming their gun bills address mental illness. Warning: Read the bill. You will find nothing in any of the Democrats' "gun safety" proposals that will make it easier to commit a crazy person or to prevent him from buying a gun. 

The Democrats' argument for doing absolutely nothing about the dangerously mentally ill, while disarming crime-preventing armed citizens is: Tell it to this weeping mother. If the Democrats' "gun safety" bill passes, there'll be plenty more weeping mothers to tell it to. 

Get on your Congressmans' cases.  They go too far if they want to endanger more human life by cause or by effect.

No comments:

Post a Comment