Posted on | December 23, 2012 | 33 Comments
In light of last Friday’s tragic school shooting, some people are arguing that gun control is just a band-aid, and that access to mental health services in this country is the real problem. . . .
You’ve probably read the “I Am [the Creepy Little Weirdo's] Mother” piece that was on the front page of the internet [Dec. 16]. . . .
If we find out that [the creepy little weirdo] was schizophrenic, it just doesn’t matter. We’re not going to change the way we medicate all schizophrenics because of this. It’s irresponsible to say, “He had this! Liza Long’s son has this! People with mental illness are violent! Causation!” Two, three, ten people going on such a rampage — it’s a bad indicator of an entire population, it’s not statistically significant. . . .
Yes, we can talk about both guns and mental health, but we must prioritize action on guns — it’s concrete, and it’s doable today. Guns are a problem, a known commodity, and we must do something about them. . . .
You can read the whole thing, which is crammed with irrational gibberish that makes me wonder if Laura Beck is off her meds and, if so, whether she’s armed. Maybe cops should keep an eye on her.
Anyway, my point is that liberals instantly decided that the Connecticut school shooting story is about gun-control, and they become irrationally indignant if you disagree: “How dare you!”
Liberals would have us believe that we must generalize from this specific example to one — exactly one — policy prescription, namely new restrictions on firearms ownership, and that any other argument is invalid, an attempt to distract people from The One Solution.
This insistence that we know all the facts we need to know, and that what is needed now is national legislation — “Do something!” — has the effect of obscuring entirely the very specific facts in Newtown, which involve a divorced woman’s increasingly desperate attempts to solve the problem of her profoundly disturbed son:
Friends told AP and the Wall Street Journal that Nancy Lanza was planning to move across the country in order to enroll [the creepy little weirdo] in a “school or a center” in an attempt to draw him out from his insular world. “He wouldn’t be dwelling with her,” said Russell Ford, who added that [the creepy little weirdo] never spoke to him or even made eye contact.
“She knew she needed to be near him,” Ford added. “She was trying to do what was positive for him.” Mark Tambascio, owner of the bar Nancy frequented, told the Journal that she believed a school in Washington would be the right fit, and she was planning on selling her beloved Red Sox season tickets. “She was ready to move,” he said.
The Journal’s profile of [the creepy little weirdo] points to his parents divorce as a major breaking point for him; though they separated in 2001, they didn’t divorce until 2009. A year after the divorce, [the creepy little weirdo] cut off communication with his father, Peter Lanza. They note: “It is unclear why Mr. Lanza refused to speak with his father, who made repeated attempts to contact him, this person said, but the breakdown in their relationship came as Peter Lanza started to get serious with his girlfriend, whom he married last year.” By Christmas of 2010, he also had stopped speaking to his brother Ryan.
Why did Nancy Lanza think it made sense to stockpile firearms in a home with a son with such serious mental problems? (I’ve dubbed him “the creepy little weirdo” because I refuse to assist the media in conferring posthumous fame on this mass murderer.) Why should the foolishness of Nancy Lanza and the evil acts of her son automatically impose limitations on people who are neither foolish nor evil? And why did the media establishment peremptorily dismiss as implausible Wayne LaPierre’s call for employing armed guards to defend schools?
They’re liberals. Don’t confuse them with facts and logic — hater!