The Debate Over Safety From Unstable People - Are Some Going Off The Deep End?

The tragedy in Tucson is, indeed, a troubling event. But it is not all that unusual. The only difference here is the involvement of a Congressperson as the victim. Other than that, unstable people do harm to others on a daily basis.

But it is in the reaction of some that is cause for real concern. One Democrat congresswoman immediately began calling for stricter gun laws - in spite of the fact that research has proven over and over that the cities and states with the most stringent gun laws have the highest crime rates, and the ones with the most lenient, or no gun laws have the lowest crime rates. The reason for this is one of logic - if you disarm the citizenry, you only turn them into easier prey for criminals.

And now representative Robert Brady (D-PA) is calling for a law that infringes on free speech, in a blind attempt to give greater protections only to congresspersons (not to you or me - just him and his cronies). If his law passes, every citizen will have to exercise great care in their choice of words, for fear of going to prison if you say something the government feels is engaging in unacceptable rhetoric.

And the worst part of Brady's bill is that he never even waits to find out if rhetoric was even the cause of the Tucson tragedy. In fact, all evidence to date indicates that Loughner (the shooter) was neither on the right nor the left. He was simply a delusional, deranged person. And in a free country the law cannot protect us from such people. So Brady's bill would make certain rhetoric illegal even though it was not the known cause of any violence. This is over-reaction, which is typical from liberals who already believe government regulation should be the answer for everything.

And now for the reactionary fear of others --- every news media is being swamped with emails from ordinary folks who are suddenly instilled with irrational fear. And it is that sort of fear that will cause another unnecessary tragedy. For example, because of all the media hype about Loughner, one college student wrote that there is a person in his class that has similar traits, and now the student is afraid he will become a victim of a crazy person. He now wants to take pro-active action to prevent that. In other words, irrational vigilantism based solely on fear - get him before he gets me.

Get a grip, folks. Mentally unstable people are one of life's uncertainties, and in a free country there really is nothing we can do about it. You cannot protect yourself from them through legislation, nor through reactionary fear. All you can do is what you should be doing, anyway - be vigilant in your surroundings, and try to live your own life without unnecessarily provoking others.

But what we definitely should not be doing is react out of fear, as several democrat politicians now want to do in order to push their anti-gun agenda. That is the one wrong move to make. Because Loughner would still have been able to procure a gun. And if a bystander had also been legally armed, he just might have been able to reduce the carnage by taking down the shooter before killing six innocent people. We have seen many instances where the armed public has done just that.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington

/