After massacres and disasters, governments ask themselves, "What laws can we pass so that this is less likely to happen again?" It's a perilous question. Carnage often leads to irrational policy. But attempts at an answer are inevitable. More often than not, mine is, "It's unwise to rely only on the government." It's an impulse that is often mocked when cautious types are seen buying emergency supplies, or organizing disaster drills, or scoping out unattended bags at the train station, or applying for a concealed weapons permit and gun safety classes. But it beats trying to say safer by launching foreign wars and infringing on civil liberties. And I suspect the mocdoeskery is often a defense mechanism against a hard truth: that there is no entity that can give us the degree of safety we imagined having; that re-burdening ourselves is sadly necessary.
Of course, the question that governments never ask is "What did we do to motivate this man and how can we change the states' behavior to lessen desire to do these heinous acts?". Because passing laws against a particular act does nothing to reduce the desire to perform the act.
The gunman in Norway, except for the massacre, seems to be rational in his opposition against rampant immigration ... as opposed to Jared Loughner, who is bat-shit crazy. No law that has been or can be passed will stop a Loughner; it can only provide a reason to keep him locked up, but after he does something.
There is also no law that can prevent a motivated individual from doing what happened in Norway.
pm
No comments:
Post a Comment