There was a fear moving across the American heartland long before Adam Lanza stepped onto the nation’s stage and donned the dark murderous mass killer robe. This 20-year-old joined the unique club of notable mass murderers that used a gun as a weapon of slaughter. After his onslaught the gun control hysteria surrounding stricter legislation has risen to a fever pitch.
Why purposely avoid holding the gunman’s mental instability responsible? Should any dangerous behavior factors or legislation that could have been in place to prevent this terrible murderous outbreak be considered? What if there had been a ‘Three Strike Rule’ in place for Adam Lanza, which allowed automatic involuntary commitment by mental health authorities? Mothers, fathers and siblings need this kind of solution that will not make them the next horrific headline in America’s homes.
This rapid rush to judgment and instant condemnation of guns as the casual factor for the mindless killings by a disturbed gunman is just too convenient a straw man. Adam Lanza, according to Fox News reports, was upset that his mother was going to commit him for psychiatric treatment. And it was Adam Lanza that constructed the plan to destroy his computer to remove any evidence concerning his plan to murder.
Yet, it has been the mainstream media, along with the urgency of the gun control first responders to keep overlooking the obvious. This disturbed gunman may have used guns as weapons to kill, but it was his mental illness that was the true deadly assault weapon!
It is essential that the loss of such precious young children, teachers and Adam Lanza’s mother, Nancy, not be buried in the grave, while the true culprit to their senseless murders is ignored. Adam Lanza, a mentally disturbed young man, stole three legally registered weapons to commit his crimes. The emphasis is that the weapons were legal.
The actual crimes were formulated in his head and his conduct, unrestrained by possible intervention of law enforcement or mental health authorities, that became the deadly weapon.
So, why do politicians want to dismember the constitutional right to arm and protect the life of an individual or a family? These officials and gun control advocates are afraid to tackle the hard question and solution to this outrage. They absolutely refuse to hold the individual who had a mental illness, and has shown previous signs of forceful, dangerous behavior, responsible for his actions.
Instead, this endless cat and mouse game is played on the national stage by congress, state legislatures, and mayors like Michael Bloomberg, who hide behind their own protective guards and trained security. These first responders of gun rights denouncers are disingenuous. They purport to seek a conversation on what can safeguard society’s innocents, but denounce attacks on Hollywood movies and violent video games which savage the young minds of young children thousands of times a year.
These same gun control activists do not seek cooperation or genuine discussion but would rather demonize gun rights supporters and castrate the National Rifle Association (NRA) at every given opportunity.
On Friday, December 21st, when Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s Executive Vice President advanced proposals at the Washington D.C. Press conference, the mainstream media and gun rights opponents trivialized his comments. They demonized his earnest request to call upon Congress to pass a law putting armed police officers in every school in America.
According to Fox News, he spoke to the need for Hollywood to rein in its violent movies and for manufacturers of violent video games to consider the harmful impact that tens of thousands of hours of violence has on young children before they are 18 years old. These compassionate words were ignored by the liberal media. Instead, they feel that these mentally ill domestic terrorists will not mindlessly kill school children, if legitimate gun owners are stripped of their legal rights. Are you willing to take that chance with your child?
The harsh reality is that in America, there are tens of thousands of families who hide in their bedroom, kitchen or basement praying that someone in law enforcement or the mental health community will intervene.
These are the first victims. They desperately wish someone would help restrain, or intervene when their mentally unstable child, or young adult, continues to threaten or be abusive. Why wait until he takes the possible next step toward unrestrained deadly violence?
The individual who perpetrates the criminal act should be the legitimate focus, not the weapon he used. When this type of violent behavior is identified the person should be involuntarily removed before murdering family members and other innocents.
In order to keep the next Aurora, Colorado, or Newtown, Connecticut from becoming the new tragedy, a ‘Three Strike Rule’ to identify and remove a violent mentally unstable person from the home must be enacted. If there are three provable reported instances of agreed upon signs of dangerous or threatening psychotic behavior, that individual is taken from the premises for treatment by the local mental health authorities.
It is certainly too late for Nancy Lanza, the murdered mother of Adam Lanza. Perhaps if she had access to a ‘Three Strike Rule’ removal process, Adam would have been taken before the attacks and her murder.
The nation must take a step back from this frenzied gun control singular solution dogma. Of course, America need answers, but they will not be found in gun control laws in Connecticut or Colorado. These states already have strict gun laws, and still the tragic mass murders were not averted. A ‘Three Strike Rule’ is a workable solution which can be used to prevent another unbalanced gunman from causing more tragedies.
How about a meaningful dialogue around this solution that involves the gunman’s actions and protects the lives of potential victims!