When...?

When will we realize that although relatives of victims deserve our sympathy and our support they do not cannot be permitted to set policy, to determine our rights?  Whether it is the parents of Trayvon Martin or the parents or children of Sandy Hook students and teachers, the depth of emotion one feels over their tragic losses is not a valid metric for the policy issues at hand.  The idea that the relatives of those tragic victims have now become a traveling side show, some variation on morbid celebrities who are followed around by cameras (get ready boys, she's about to ask her question), being treated as experts on an issue because it has so tragically touched them, is absurd.  The fact that they are being used as props by those with an agenda - those who admit that the changes they are seeking would not have changed the tragic events of that day - is even more alarming.

I'll hearken back to a previous post - when my wife asked me "What if it had been me that was shot?"  As I noted, I told her that would suck - I cannot imagine that feeling.  But I would also ask why she had not been armed.  Why had she not carried the weapon she owns and has a permit to carry?  Why had she chosen to go unarmed - or why was she forced to go unarmed so as to abide by the law?  Why had her personal choice to be armed been taken away (I am pro-choice after all)?

There is a finite set of critical elements that are necessary and sufficient for such heinous crimes to succeed in total:

1. a criminal, bad guy, evil-doer
2. a firearm (in the hands of number 1)
3. a gun-free zone (see number 2)

Hence, we have ample evidence that people who wish to kill will do so - the weapon is not the cause, the person is the cause.  Remember, it is "Mothers Against Drink Driving" not "Mothers Against Cars" or even "Mothers Against Alcohol". The problem is behavior.  We know this, in most cases, wherein we still sell fertilizer, kitchen knives, and automobiles.  In fact, most murders are not committed with handguns (we may think so, but that is really an effect of the availability heuristic - those are the cases that are most highlighted and thus most easily come to mind).  We have ample evidence that those who commit such mass murders seem inclined to choose places where the intended victims can be presumed to be defenseless.  Only one person is going to bring a gun where it is against the law - the person who intends to commit a crime with it.  And if they are willing to murder, then an unlawful possession charge is not likely to deter them.  I have no doubt that an armed civilian could have stopped James Holmes or Adam Lanza (either physically or psychologically) prior to them racking up the body counts they did - if one had been present.

Let's see how many armed robberies are committed at the NRA convention this weekend - how the crime rate in the area is affected.