Gun Violence: Liberalism's Unintended Consequence

A lot has been said lately regarding the supposed outbreak of gun violence in America. Many politicos are using the opportunity to push for new restrictions on gun sales and ownership.

Vice President Joe Biden, who is spearheading the President's policy on gun control,  should know. After all, by his own admission, for the past 35 years no one has been a better friend to law enforcement than he has.

But...according to Joe, "Common sense facts are these assault weapons are unneccesary and dangerous weapons that put our law enforcement personnel at risk..."

 "Assault rifles" and "large-capacity magazines" are the new buzz-words that liberals throw out in an attempt to scare the populace and minimalize the Second Ammendment. Most of the liberals would be happy to ban all guns completely. But, there is another twist to this story. One that liberals would very much like not to be remembered..

In looking at recent and not so recent shootings that have garnered national press, there seems to be a common thread. That is, for the most part, the shooter(s) were either going to the school in question, were graduates of said school, or were family members of faculty and/or staff of the school.

That said, there were also signs of some psychological issues well before the act. Most of the time, people interviewed after the incident, could point out specific items that occurred before the shootings that they believed were precursor to the event. But nothing was done until it was too late.

And that, is the problem the liberals would prefer you not to remember.

Many years ago, there were statutes on the books that were referred to as "status offenses." These were laws that were used by law enforcement officers at times when a person's behavior was not exactly criminal, yet not civil either.

In some instances, the offender was an unruly youth whose parents could no longer control. The "incorrigible" teenager. This would give the parent an opportuniy to have the teen removed from the home or in some instances, the teen could be dropped off at the police station until the parent had the opportunitiy to seek resolution in Family Court.

The other widely used status offense was referred to as SK/Dependant or commonly known as "safe-keeping." This "charge" was used when it was obvious to a responding crew that the person had some psycholigical issues and posed a danger to either himself or another. The offender was transported to a medical facility where it was REQUIRED he be seen by a medical professional within 72-hours.

If, in the opnion of the Doctor, there were some underlying problems, the Court would decide if there should be an involuntary commitment order. If there were no problems, the person was released.

But to many liberals, this was seen as huniliating. How could the police take a person who is standing in the middle of the street, naked as a jaybird, howling at the moon as someone doing nothing more than expressing his "inner-self." The police have no right to seek medical treatment for this obvious "victim" of a repressive society.

And so the laws were repealed.

And look where we are today.

If the laws were still on the books, would there have been no shootings at Columbine, VMI, or Newtown? I honestly don't know. But if these shooters had had an intervention with a medical professional, could you honestly say the shootings may not have occurred?  Unfortunately, we will never know the answer. Unfortunately, those who perished in those events will never know either.