Act II: In Which A Patriot Screws It Up For Everyone

Okay, so a current event has dealt my first topic. I'm writing this off the cuff so forgive me if my thoughts aren't too organized.

To start things off I will say that today's shooting in Connecticut is a tragedy. The fact that so many victims were children makes it makes it that much worse. Everyone wants to know why this happened. Unfortunately we will never truly understand why. That only makes sense to the cowardly asshole that shot 20 children. My heart goes out to the victims' families. I don't really know what can be said to comfort them. Those of us not personally affected by the tragedy - the voyeurs glued to the disgusting repetitive predatory media ratings frenzy - are left numb. This shooting comes 3 days after the Clackamas mall shooting and a few months after the Dark Knight massacre. Obviously, it seems we have a problem on our hands and many people feel insecure.

I've seen a couple of Facebook posts calling for mandatory police or national guard presence at all public schools. To that I ask: What about malls, political appearances, college campuses, movie theaters, banks, churches, office buildings, airports, and other venues where terror strikes? Can they be the neighborhood watch? Where does it end? Would being surrounded by armed officers while you are defenseless really make you feel safer? Does mere police presence stop crime?

This is the same type of panicked mentality that birthed the and fostered Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is what brought us a new level of invasive governmental powers. Trust me, if the personal emails of the head of the CIA are fair game, everybody's are fair game. Random acts of senseless violence are scary and, when scared, people beg for protection. This want for more security causes or enables (depending on your viewpoint) the government to centralize more power which usually ends up infringing on civil liberties. I believe if we start posting armed forces at the doors of schools, it's paving the way to a police state and, furthermore, it wouldn't solve anything.

Law enforcement by its nature is reactionary. Typically, law enforcement of any kind doesn't show up until after the crime has commenced, usually after it has ended.  Police aren't here to keep us safe. They aren't here to deter crime. They are here to control people and collect revenue. Their responses to crimes keep you safe, but it is a function of controlling people. For example, if they let people get away with a major crime, like bank robbery, there would be no order. The threat of punishment - prison terms, fines, and penalties - controls people. How many people would pay income tax if it wasn't enforced by a prison sentence? Laws are enforced by violence, ergo, the police control people through violence. Ask OWS protesters or any other group that has been pepper sprayed for trying to make a peaceful statement. However, in the eyes of a "criminal", the incentive of breaking the law outweighs the risk of getting caught and, therefore, a crime occurs. The only people that truly suffer in a police state are the ones that obey the law.

With that in mind, the brand of crazy that shoots up public places doesn't care about authority, police, or punishment in the first place. They usually plan to kill themselves. Theoretically, even with a police presence, they could still sneak a weapon into a public arena and do their worst. The police on site would only begin mobilize after it began. If there are metal detectors and searches, they can open up on the people waiting in line or outside of the venue. Even if they are completely deterred altogether, they'll simply figure out another way to kill a bunch of people.

I used the word weapon in the previous paragraph, not gun. I did this because our media hypes events in America that happen with guns. It is worth noting that in a country with a strong authoritarian government, that does not allow its citizens to own guns, this type of violence still occurs. I'll give you a hint. This country's name most likely appears on some poor quality shit you bought at Walmart that gave you lead poisoning.

Although our media really isn't reporting it, today, the same day as the Connecticut shootings, a man in China's Henan province stabbed 22 school children, ages from 6-11. In some ways, I find stabbing to be a bit more horrific and much more personalized assault than a shooting. Fortunately, none of these children were killed but the fact remains that this behavior is not exclusive to the U.S. nor is it related to guns.

Now, if you have some cake, you should probably hide it because this next fact will motherfucking take it. This is the third year in a row in which an adult has stabbed a bunch of Chinese school children...seriously. Don't believe me? Read this or this. Remember, this is a country whose government is so strong that it filters the nation's internet access and it still didn't prevent this from happening even with two preceding identical events. I realize that China may not have implemented any procedures to stop it so let's look at a completely different act of random violence and another shining moment in Chinese history. Earlier this year a man got on a subway and, after the doors closed and the train departed, began stabbing random women. How terrifying would that be? There's no means of escape.

I acknowledge that China doesn't have the best human rights record. For that reason it seems it would have prevented the publication of these stories to avoid bad PR. It certainly has the ability to do so. Seriously, do you think China wants its citizens to fear for their lives and the lives of their children every day? To some degree it is logically in the government's best interest to keep children and citizens safe from each other. Crime only strengthens the government as long as the people believe the government does its best to deter it. If that illusion vaporizes, revolution would shortly follow.

Now, we'll leave the Land of the Sleeping Giant and return to the Land of the Endless Buffet.

This shooting is surely going to turn into a gun control issue in America. It's expected and it should. If it makes everyone feel better, take away people's right to own guns. It will not correct the behavior. If Lanza had assaulted kids with a chainsaw would we want power tool legislation? To make it worse, you can't monitor people's mental status so you'll never know when a perfectly reasonable person reaches the end of their rope.

My whole point here is that more authority is not going to end this. Crazies will simply find new and inventive ways to kill large groups of innocent people. Whether they build a bomb Kaczynski-style; dump an ammonia and bleach concoction into movie theater and seal the exits; walk onto a subway with an ax; or simply start pushing bystanders into traffic, in front of subway trains, or into the Grand Canyon, they want to kill you if they want to do so. If that scares you, it should. It's fucking terrifying and you have no control over it. No amount of policing will change it. No amount of cameras will change it. Criminals and psychopaths exist and have always existed in every society. Rules do not apply to criminals because they ignore them at will. Rules never apply to crazy people...that's what makes them fucking crazy. The increased police presence will only serve to keep you, the law-abiding, punishment-fearing citizen, inconvenienced and in line...a very straight and narrow line.

(Please don't comment. I don't care.)