In light of the recent news, political and social media attention on the tragic shooting incident in Tucson AZ this weekend, a rational, logical analysis and supportable theory regarding potential damage mitigation of these incidents in the future should be made. The progressive’s use of this tragedy to strike out at their political advisories is unfortunate, yet predictable.
Why they attack
Violent attacks against “innocent” victims, whether premeditated or spur of the moment, are motivated by fairly well definable motivations. Criminal intent, political goals, emotional rage or mental disorders are common reasons for violence. In their mind, violence becomes a “rationally justified” route to obtain their goals. Bottom Line: They violate the laws of society regarding violent action for their own personal goals, or their inability to control their emotional outbursts.
Mitigation of an attack
There is no practical short-term method to reduce violent attacks via constructive engagement of likely attackers. Those who turn to violence for their own personal needs or satisfaction are likely set in their ways for the majority of their lives, as proven out by current criminal recidivism numbers and modern psychological theory of personality development and disorders.
If we are to maintain a society which honors the basic tenants of individual freedom, as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and discussed at length in the framers publications of the 1700’s, then we cannot hope to create a police state which may promise to protect us from violent individuals. Even in downtown Bagdad and Kabul, full of armed soldiers on foot and mounted patrols, violent crimes occur hourly against innocents.
“Men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them” – George Orwell
The only pragmatic solution for the protection of innocents against violent attack, is for individuals to be capable of protecting themselves. This is how it has been throughout human history, and no technology or statist oppression against a populace will be capable of bettering this solution. History is full of examples of armed individuals who have protected themselves from assault, and disarmed individuals being murdered. While being armed is no guarantee of a successful defense, current US statistics show a far less likely chance of being injured if you are armed and resist, rather than being unarmed and/or not resisting when an attacker strikes.
Lets put this all in perspective as it relates to the horrific mass killing in Tucson (or any other modern mass or spree killings recently in the Western World; pick one (# killed): Appomattox (8), Binghampton (14), Fort Hood (13), Winnenden (15), Red Lake (9), Geneva (10), Virginia Tech (32), Cumbria (12), Comlumbine (13), Luby’s (23), San Ysidro (21) or Port Arthur (35). The common denominator with all these mass or spree killings is unarmed and/or disarmed victims. While stories abound regarding heroic attempts to stop the rampages of the killers in above incidents, they always end the same way: The unarmed hero is shot by the killer. How many armed citizens would it have taken in the above incidents to stop the killers when they had just began to shoot? One, maybe two?
Discussions of personal self-defense make some people uncomfortable. Being among fellow citizens who are armed even more so . Yet these emotional frailties do not alter a human’s natural right to defend themselves, nor their Constitutional right to bear arms. In the few remaining US states that are politically controlled by these hand wringers, violent crime is significantly higher than those states that constitutionally recognize and facilitate law abiding citizens right to carry arms for self defense. The statists only answer to violent crime is further suppression of the general citizenry, which breeds contempt for not only those lawmakers and their party, but for the laws as well, which is the real danger and threat to our orderly society. Que calls for “Speech Crimes” and “Thought Crimes” by statist lawmakers.