Gun Control and Mass Killers


Updated April 25, 2018

By Jerry A. Boggs | July 2016

Many gun-control advocates make no distinction between mass killers such as Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz (February 2018) and the common murderers on the street — hence, one of their reasons to call for gun control. I think it’s more appropriate to put school mass killers and other domestic mass killers into the same category as ISIS-type terrorists because they share a trait: the determination to kill as many as possible.

Incidentally, researchers say schools are safer than they were in the ’90s.*

In a campaign to stop the massacres in the U.S. – which have become shockingly routine – many Democrats (and some Republicans) want to ban certain kinds of assault rifles, such as the AK-47 and the AR-15. Many gun-control advocates want to outright ban all guns. I can understand their anger, their despair and desperation to do something. Consider this mind-numbing chronology of some of the large and small massacres in the United States in the last 130 years:

In 1886, at a labor rally at Chicago’s Haymarket Square, 11 people were murdered, including seven police officers, and more than 100 were wounded.

In 1910, two leaders of the ironworkers union pleaded guilty to killing 20 in the Los Angeles Times building during a labor dispute.

In 1920, anarchists ended the lives of 40 and injured hundreds in New York City’s Wall Street area.

In 1927, Andrew Kehoe killed 38 elementary school children and 6 adults and wounded at least 58 other people, in what is known as the Bath School Disaster.

In 1971, an unknown man murdered 30 in The Upstairs Lounge, a gay bar in New Orleans’ French Quarter.

In 1972, a caller claiming to represent Soviet Jews killed one person and wounded nine in the New York City office of impresario Sol Hurok.

In 1975, Palestinian, Puerto Rican, and Croatian groups were suspected of killing 11 people and wounding 75 at the TWA terminal at New York’s LaGuardia Airport.

Also in 1975, the Puerto Rican nationalist group FALN was believed to have killed four people at historic Fraunces Tavern in New York City. The group struck 48 other times between 1974 and 1977.

In 1981, a group calling itself the Puerto Rican Armed Resistance claimed responsibility for killing a man in a men’s bathroom at the Pan Am terminal at New York’s Kennedy Airport.

In 1993, six people were killed and more than 1,000 injured at the World Trade Center in New York City.

In 1995 Oklahoma City, Timothy McVeigh slaughtered 168 people and injured more than 500.

In 1996, Eric Robert Rudolph pleaded guilty to killing two people and wounding more than 100 at Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta during the Summer Games.

In 1998, Theodore Kaczynski pleaded guilty in Sacramento, Calif., to killing three people and wounding 23 during a nationwide murder spree between 1978 and 1995.

Also in 1998, Eric Robert Rudolph was suspected of killing one guard and wounding a nurse at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama.

In 2001, nearly 3,000 people were killed by terrorists in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

In 2013, at the Boston Marathon, Chechen brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev murdered 3 civilians and injured an estimated 264 others.

As I said, I can understand why many Democrats (as well as some Republicans) want to ban certain guns – or all guns – to deal with mass killers. There’s just one problem. In every single one of the cases above, as attentive readers with an eye for history no doubt already guessed, not one shot was fired — no gun was used to kill anyone. All of the many deaths were the result of bombs, or, in the case of the 9/11 tragedy, of planes serving as bombs, and in the case of The Upstairs Lounge massacre, of lighter fluid exposed suddenly to air, in effect a fire bomb.

To the list, it’s necessary, I think, to add a few near-misses to drive home the point that the employment of bombs to kill has been extensive:

In 1914, Arthur Caron masterminded a failed attempt in New York to assassinate John D. Rockefeller using a bomb constructed from dynamite.

In 1971, the Senate wing of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., was bombed by the Weather Underground. No one was killed.

In 2009, the so-called “underwear bomber,” Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was subdued by passengers and crew after trying to blow up an airliner heading from Paris to Detroit using explosives hidden in his undergarments.

In 2010, Pakistani immigrant Faisal Shahzad left an explosives-laden SUV in New York’s Times Square, hoping to detonate it on a busy night. Street vendors spotted smoke coming from the vehicle and the bomb was disabled.

In 2011, a backpack bomb was placed along a Martin Luther King Day parade route in Spokane, Washington, meant to kill and injure participants in a civil-rights march, but was found and disabled before it could explode.

Mass killers who use guns often have bombs they undoubtedly would unleash were guns unavailable. 

In 1999, the Columbine High School shooters used a fire bomb to divert firefighters. They had converted propane tanks to bombs and placed them in the school cafeteria. In their possession were 99 explosive devices and car bombs.

In December 2015, after terrorists gunned down 14 in San Bernardino, California, the Boston Herald wrote:

“…12 pipe bombs are found in the home of the two now-dead killers, along with three pipe bombs wired to a remote control device, hundreds of bomb-making tools in their garage….”

Were no guns available, the rampaging duo might have had in their home 50 more remote-controlled pipe bombs after using three or four that might have killed more than 14 and destroyed considerable property.

In June 2016, the terrorist who shot to death 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, threatened to detonate a car rigged with bombs and to strap hostages into explosive vests, according to partial transcripts of his 911 calls.

“This is not about guns,” retired Lt. General Michael T. Flynn, author of “The Field of Fight” and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said on “The Kelly File” June 29, 2016, regarding the war on terrorists.

I ask gun-control advocates: If a ban on all guns were still in effect since the late 1800s, would it have affected this history of massacres? Not so much, I would venture.

“None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.”
— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla., a recipient of NRA donations), interview on CBS’s “This Morning,” Dec. 4, 2015

The Washington Post Fact Checker agrees. The Washington Post is not known to be affiliated with conservatives, the GOP, or the National Rifle Association. Says the Fact Checker: 

“Rubio’s statement stands up to scrutiny — at least for the recent past, as he framed it. Notably, three of the mass shootings took place in California, which already has strong gun laws including a ban on certain weapons and high-capacity magazines.” (Emphasis Relevant Matters)

How would terrorists and other mass-killers be affected tomorrow if today the government confiscated all assault rifles or even all guns?

“People respond to incentives, although not necessarily in ways that are predictable or manifest. Therefore, one of the most powerful laws in the universe is the law of unintended consequences.” -From the book SuperFreakonomics

If today all guns were confiscated, tomorrow at least the following unintended consequences would ensue (many people are aware of these consequences; just read the comments following the many articles on gun control):

More sophisticated 3D printed guns. Even without a ban, could someone, for instance ISIS-influenced terrorists living in the U.S., right now be printing AR-15s? To borrow a bromide about nuclear weapons, the genie is out of the bottle.

A sky-rocketing bomb-making ingenuity and a proliferation of home-made bombs in basements, garages, storage facilities, etc.

A much bigger black market for weapons — as happened in Australia — resulting in gun-runners as we’ve never seen them before, coming mostly from or through, say, Mexico, their number perhaps equaling drug runners. “Last week law-enforcement officials charged almost two dozen Virginians who allegedly took part in a gun-running ring. The accused bought boatloads of firearms in Virginia and sold them in New York City for exorbitant sums. The tough gun-control laws in New York have made gun-running very profitable, and the repeal of Virginia’s one-gun-a-month law four years ago has made it very easy.” –

If all guns were confiscated and a vast black market materialized, guns would likely cost more, perhaps much more. That could mean thieves, muggers, burglars, home-invaders, and other criminals would face a higher operating cost. And that might lead to even more thieving, mugging, burglarizing, and home-invading to make up the difference.)

“…[T]he UK has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world,” reports the BBC. The result of all this gun control? A London homicide rate higher than New York’s, at least in the short term” due to the use of knives. (I can’t thinking of an analogy: taking away shoppers’ cars to keep them from shopping. Would they not then go shopping via bicycle, cab, bus…?)

A U.S. effort to reduce mass murders, the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004, produced this consequence: “The ban didn’t appear to have a significant impact on the number of mass murder incidents in that decade compared to other decades, and within the decade, there was no downward trend. This only shows that the availability of assault weapons doesn’t change the number of mass murder incidents, which means that killers just switched to different weapons, obtained illegal weapons, or made improvised weapons. During the ban, large attacks like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Park Bombing occurred, and the average number of people killed per incident increased from 9.4 pre-ban to 11.3 during the ban, then decreasing to 7.6 after the ban expired. The average number of people injured per incident increased from 8.0 to 35.0 during the ban and decreased to 5.6 after the ban. There may have been a downward trend during the ban, but the dataset is too small and too random to draw a strong conclusion.” [Italics by Relevant Matters.] -“The Mass Murder Problem,” by David Hillshafer, Skeptic Magazine, 2013


Gun-control advocates mistake a mass killer’s intent. They seem to think, perhaps unconsciously, that a killer’s intent is to kill with a gun. It is not. The intent is to kill, whether by gun or other means such as driving a car through a cluster of people, including school kids near a school.

Some advocates, who say or imply “take away the guns and no killings will occur,” have told me mass killers use guns because of the convenience. That may be true, but did the advocates hear this from surveyed mass killers who survived their atrocious deeds?

I’ve often thought a gun may let the mass killer make a statement that’s not easily made with a bomb that explodes after the killer has left: “Look at me! Do you see how angry I am?” 

Again, mass killers’ intent is to kill. Period. 

Many believe school killings would be deterred if schools were heavily guarded. But what if in some cases that acts as a magnet, not a repellent? What if the intent of some killers is not just to kill but also to get killed — suicide by guard, or cop, or teacher? 

The suicide rate for the teen boys and young men in mass killers’ age group is extremely high, much higher than that for same-age women. (This may be partly why massacres are virtually a male-only enterprise.) Twenty-three-year old Mark Anthony Condit, a self-described psychopath, was the Austin serial bomber who blew himself up in March 2018. According to, Condit, in a video he left, says maybe I should just blow myself up in a McDonald’s and end the whole thing.

boycrisis“School shootings are homicides that are also suicides—even if the boy doesn’t end his own life literally, for all practical purposes, his life is still ended.” –The Boy Crisis, by Warren Farrell, published March 2018.  

If a school (or a mall, or a night club, etc.) is heavily guarded, other determined mass killers, especially terrorists, will seek another venue. 

If everyone were allowed to carry a concealed weapon, consider this unintended consequence:

Mass killers and terrorists, being aware of the carry law, would hurl bombs and/or toxic-gas cylinders as they drove, bicycled, or ran by, almost always catching the gun bearers by surprise.

“There are also fewer gun owners than there used to be. Less than a third of American households own guns today, compared to nearly half in 1973, according to the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Half the guns in the U.S. are owned by 3 percent of the adult population.” –, Feb. 18, 2018

Suppose a determined mass killer had no access to toxic gas, bomb-making material, or guns. He or she would not speed by crowds in their vehicle but into them — possibly the method of choice for a growing number of mass killers.

Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel did just than in Nice, France, on July 14, 2016, Bastille Day, killing 84. In March 2018, the UK’s Daily Mail reported on a vindictive, impulsive would-be killer in Gravesend, England: “At least 13 partygoers were injured after a car ploughed into a Kent nightclub during a concert for the rapper Giggs last night.” In Canada in April 2018, “Ten people were killed and 15 others were injured after a white rental van mowed down pedestrians along a busy street in Toronto on Monday.” Regarding this incident, see also the commentary of April 24, 2018, “Weapons Are Just Tools. It’s People Who Are Dangerous.”

With each new gun regulation, we must try to think like a mass killer who is determined to kill. Only by daring to immerse ourselves in these killers’ minds do we have a chance to avoid knee-jerk, futile political responses, best recognize unintended consequences, and find our best solutions.

What can you do right this minute to help? Stop thinking of mass killers and terrorists as mass “shooters.”


*”Researchers: Schools Safer Than They Were In The 90s, School Shootings Not More Common” No epidemic. In a Washington Times report March 27, 2018:

How many people have been killed in school shootings in the United States since 1900? The answer is 552, at least according to a comprehensive list compiled by Wikipedia. Assuming this isn’t wildly inaccurate, 4.7 people have been killed in school shootings per year in modern American history.

I frequently hear people on social media say, “Do you know how unlikely it is that you’ll be killed in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil?” As long as you don’t count 9/11, which killed 2,996 people, the odds that you are going to die in an Islamic terrorist attack are extremely low at six people killed per year.

But the same people who say this should recognize that the odds that your elementary, middle, high school, or university student is going to die in a school shooting are even lower.

See also the Pew Research Center’s report “5 facts about crime in the U.S.“: “Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century.”


Some anti-gun advocates, often in a frantic search for answers to mass murders, remind me of the medieval doctors who desperately tried to find the causes of the Black Death. No matter what precautions the doctors applied, the plague kept right on mass-killing.

Politicized lawmakers are great at putting themselves in the shoes of the friends and family of those killed in massacres, and feeling their pain. They don’t seem to realize, however, that it’s just as important to immerse themselves, to the extent possible, in the minds of the killers.

“Australia’s Gun ‘Buyback’ Created a Violent Firearms Black Market. Why Should the U.S. Do the Same?”:

“Police admit they cannot eradicate a black market that is peddling illegal guns to criminals,” the Adelaide Advertiser conceded a few years ago. “Motorcycle gang members and convicted criminals barred from buying guns in South Australia have no difficulty obtaining illegal firearms – including fully automatic weapons.”

More recently, Australia’s The New Daily gained access to “previously unpublished data for firearms offences” and reported a surge in crime “including a massive 83 per cent increase in firearms offences in NSW between 2005/06 and 2014/15, and an even bigger jump in Victoria over the same period.”

“Australians may be more at risk from gun crime than ever before with the country’s underground market for firearms ballooning in the past decade,” the report added. “[T]he national ban on semi-automatic weapons following the Port Arthur massacre had spawned criminal demand for handguns.”

Read about this unintended consequence at

Study: Some Gun Control Laws Result in More Deaths

Gun-control advocates are, I believe, imprudent to ignore all this.

Suggested reading:

‘Assault Weapons,’ Explained” 

A Cure for Mass Shootings Doesn’t Exist” -Reason Magazine

Media Reports Australians ‘Handed In’ 57,000 Guns Last Year; 37,000 of Them Essentially Handed Right Back“) – Reason Magazine

The assault weapons ban didn’t work. A new version won’t, either” -LA Times

30 Terrorist Plots Foiled


(For the record, I do not like guns. I have never owned one. Never will (unless crime and home invasions start in my immediate area). But I certainly understand why families in high-crime areas keep them in their homes. They do so primarily for the same reason nations keep a military and defense weapons: fear of an invasion. Some years ago, my best friend, while living in a good area, bought a gun after a burglar entered his apartment as he slept. It happened twice, he said. Gun-ban advocates might want to spend a few nights in a high-crime area to feel the real fear, before telling residents, as even NAACP’s president Derrick Johnson tells them, they need to give up their guns.)


About relevantmatters

I do research and writing about issues that are relevant to our lives -- such as politics, peace, health care, climate change, and advice to young people. For relief, I offer a few short fiction pieces.
This entry was posted in Miscellaneous, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Gun Control and Mass Killers

  1. Dave M says:

    You leave out the convenience and effectiveness factor. How many mass killers might have said “ah the heck with building a bomb, too complicated”. They reach for the low-hanging fruit, which is the near omnipresence of easily available guns. You don’t know how “determined” they are.

    • Thanks for the comment, Dave.

      Yes, in most cases a gun will be the most convenient. I merely said that in the ABSENCE of guns — if all guns were confiscated — determined mass killers will resort to other means. Not every single one of them, but many.

      You paid no attention to my list of killings starting in the late 1800s. Why? Why did you ignore the main point?

      • Dave McIntyre says:

        I didn’t ignore it, I just didn’t think it’s particularly relevant. Horrific yes, but not relevant to the gun debate. You listed 16 instances ok? 16. And starting in 1886. I went to and saw hundreds of instances. And that’s just the last couple years. Go back 10, 20 years and how many would it be? So you really think that bombs-to-guns ratio is relevant at all? You really think they compare?

      • Dave, my main point — maybe my only point — is that IF GUNS ARE ELIMINATED, PEOPLE WILL USE OTHER WAYS TO KILL. Mind you, I restricted my topic only to mass killings, not individual homicides, the “everyday brand.” Mass killers differ from the ordinary killer.

        Re: “You listed 16 instances ok? 16. And starting in 1886. I went to and saw hundreds of instances.”

        Hundreds of instances of what? Mass killings? Or just shootings? Read the above paragraph again.

      • Dave M says:

        To your first point – please stop yelling, it doesn’t help your case. Also yes hundred of mass shootings, most of which are killings. It’s there, plain as day. I’ll link it if you want.
        Bombs are bad, guns are worse, much much worse. There’s no comparison. You really need to study the case of Australia, which has had only 1 mass killing with guns since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

        I agree mostly with the verdict in the Heller case: “(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”

        They upheld the right to self-defense and I agree – the logic of “better to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it” is airtight as fair as I’m concerned.

        In other words, we need way more rules and regulations and the will to enforce them, NRA be damned.

  2. Dave M says:

    Also, does sum it up if you want real numbers.

  3. Dave M says:

    To these points – your first question is so broad as to be almost meaningless. It’s like asking what would I do about crime? Try to stop it? To the second, just a little background first:

    “It’s just easier to get a gun than it is to get a job,” said William Sampson, who heads public policy studies at DePaul University.”

    “Solutions to the epidemic were just as difficult to define, researchers said. But they noted the undeniable fact that guns are ravaging Chicago. ”

    I would declare Martial Law and go door to door with the Army and confiscate all guns. Force the breakup of the gangs by arresting the ringleaders. And then give back (maybe just one gun) to those who can prove they deserve it. I would setup a perimeter around the city to halt the criminal importation of guns. Special circumstances apply. So circle the wagons till the madness ends.

    • Dave, I’m actually concerned only about my first question. That’s what my article is about. So I really don’t think we ought to pursue this any longer.

    • Patrick Henry says:

      Bombs too complicated?
      Guns available, but why.
      Don’t even have to rent a truck, just drive your car into a group, any group, anywhere, anytime.
      The tool doesn’t matter, the evil in ones heart is all that counts.
      Arguments over guns are all BS!>

      • Yes. You well stated the driving force that makes the type of weapon irrelevant: the evil in one’s heart. And the determination to do evil.

      • Dave M says:

        What about all the suicides by gun? You think those people would have used bombs instead? Or just maybe the impulse would have passed had not the means of death been so convenient and they’d still be alive.

        And are all people equal or not? If it’s just a matter of murderous intent shouldn’t there be an equal distribution among race concerning shootings? But it’s largely concentrated in one particular race isn’t it? And why do you think that is? Careful now.

    • JamesH says:

      Okay I’m late here. But Dave you are an idiot. Do you REALLY believe we have the logistical resources to go “door to door” in the US and confiscate all estimated 300 million firearms? Do you have any idea that 97% of the US is undeveloped (means woods where anyone can bury their guns)? This of course does not even take into consideration that some firearm owners keep their most treasured handguns in a bank’s safe deposit box like my late WWII vet grandfather did for his German Luger taken off an SS soldier he killed. Would you force all banks to open those up for inspection too? Great story for the Hollywood liberals, but in the real world, not so much.

      • Good points, James. Thanks.

        Re: “my late WWII vet grandfather did for his German Luger taken off an SS soldier he killed”

        James, you may want to save this bookmark for one of my other blogs:

        Soon I’ll add another short story about a slice of WW2. A Luger figures in it a bit. Guess what the main character’s first name is. You got it: James.

        Thanks for the good comment.

      • Dave says:

        In was the context of Chicago. Can you not read? How is that a good comment?

  4. Doug S. says:

    “I would declare Martial Law…”

    Wow. Dave, can we assume you’re also one of those who believe Trump might be a “tyrant”? What do you believe to be the reason for the Second Amendment to begin with? Do you recall what started the Revolutionary War?

    • Dave M says:

      It was Trump’s idea to begin with, so no I don’t think Trump is a tyrant, far from it.
      As for your history questions, there are hundreds of books about it, pick one and read it yourself. This is basic education. If you have a statement about it say it.

  5. Lou says:

    Nice read. And I agree with you that the mass killings at schools and such should not be in the same category as common murderers, there should be a distinction between them. Although they both use guns they are different animals. Do not agree they should be in same category as the ISIS type. Although they both kill in mass one uses bombs the other guns. They should be categorized as what they are mass shooters. Cancer kills and heart disease kills and they could be categorized as killer diseases. But they are different types of diseases and need to be treated different. Mass killers also need to be handled different depending on their type.

    Your list of killings from the 1800’s to now show that people who are dead set on killing people in mass will find a way. And they did it with bombs instead of guns.

    And I do agree with you a ban on guns will not stop someone dead set on killing in mass. If guns are illegal people will still find a way to kill.

    Bombs are illegal, you can not buy one, and it has not stopped people from using them to kill in mass. But,,,,Hypothetically, say for the last 130 years bombs were legal, anyone (who didn’t have criminal record) 18 years old or older could walk into a store and buy a bomb legally. Do you think we would have had more mass killings with bombs or less?

    Kind of the same with guns. Don’t want all guns illegal. But feel a ban on assault type guns would lead to less deaths. Better screening would help too.

    9/11 the planes used as bombs killed close to 3,000. Afterward we restricted “all” flights for a few days to get our thoughts together. Then came up with enhanced screenings for passengers, restricted what you could take on a flight and restricted some people from flying at all with the no fly list. So far no one has used a plane as a bomb since.

    The near miss you spoke about with the “underwear” bomber, do you think his chances to succeed would have been better before the changes made from 9/11? When we were less vigilant.

    I don’t want to outlaw/ban all guns. I do believe in the second amendment. But I really don’t see the harm in banning assault rifles. And in my opinion I feel it may be a step in slowing down mass killings.

    I agree with you people will still find a way to kill in mass, but let’s not make it easy? The first step to stopping anything is slowing it down.

    • Thanks for the well-thought-out comment.

      Re: “Do you think we would have had more mass killings with bombs or less?”

      Hard to say, Lou. I’ll leave it to the experts to answer that. I try not second-guess those whose minds I cannot enter, and I always think of this when pondering such questions:

      “People respond to incentives, although not necessarily in ways that are predictable or manifest. Therefore, one of the most powerful laws in the universe is the law of unintended consequences.” -From the book SuperFreakonomics

  6. says:

    We have created this ourselves. When we leave God out of the picture, what do we have? Anarchy.

  7. Joey says:

    That picture lists 8 events. 7 are random mass murders and 1 is a terrorist attack.

    For the 7 random mass murders, 7 of the killers were mentally ill, 7 of the killers had been on psychiatric drugs, at least 4 of the killers were autistic.

    Like most terrorists in the US, the government failed. It failed in 9/11, it failed in Orlando, it failed in San Bernardino, it failed in Boston, it failed, failed, failed. In this case, the terrorist was ineligible to buy a gun, but the government let him anyway.

    What we need to do is conceptually simple. First, the government needs to do its job efficiently and correctly and stop letting bad people buy guns or giving terrorists visas.

    Second, we need a way to collect information on the mentally ill and to flag those who show multiple risk factors, such as being on psychiatric meds and being autistic. For those so risky, we need to initiate adjudication hearings that could commit them before they hurt someone.

    • Doug S. says:

      Joey, not saying your thoughts aren’t relevant, but the devil is truly in the details. Lots of law would have to be changed for it to ever work. For the most part, it’s not easy to restrain someone without their consent (Addington v. Texas, among others). Remember Hasan, the Army MAJOR and PSYCHIATRIST who shot up Fort Hood? If he wasn’t anticipated/flagged – who would be? There are over 200 recognized “mental illnesses.” Only a minority of them exhibit violent symptoms, and even among those so characterized, not _all_ of the victims are violent, so – who gets to decide which of them gets the rubber room? Psychological analysis ain’t a 10 minute deal. As for “government” doing its job efficiently and correctly, realize “government” is first and foremost a gigantic bureaucracy, each segment with its own turf and rules of engagement and raison d’etre. Just because it’s got nearly limitless power these days, doesn’t mean it automatically knows how best to use it. (Probably a _good_ thing for “we, the people”!) Bottom line is, if someone who’s not just publicly bat$hit crazy, and is determined to murder, there’s almost no way to prevent their attempts beforehand. Even the vaunted Secret Service acknowledges that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s