Price for the right to remain fully armed
In America, victims of mass killings are collateral damage
Dec 16, 2012 | 3 Comments
Like many others, I can’t stop crying. Not openly, but deep inside. Walled-off by well-crafted defense mechanisms.
I don’t want to dwell on the unthinkable anguish of the families, but I can’t escape the media barrage of details, speculation and commentary. I don’t blame the messenger, but I hope people will challenge the message.
Don’t let the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and other mass murders fade into memory as if they represent unanswerable questions.
We ask, “Who could do something like this?” Regrettably, the functional answer is, “Someone who can purchase or otherwise acquire personal weapons of mass destruction.”
We ask, “Why?” and then get mired in the psycho-babble. We don’t need experts to tell us that humans suffering from the most extreme mental illnesses are capable of unspeakable evil. We know about the mental illnesses, but not how to prevent them.
We understand the easy accessibility to mass-murder weaponry, and we choose not to change. As mass killings rise, Americans reportedly have reduced their support for gun control.
I don’t have the emotional energy to research and report on the pros and cons of gun control right now. But if the status quo continues, it means we have considered the cost-benefit ratio and decided that these deaths are an acceptable price for the right to remain fully armed.
In the final analysis it will mean that these victims, young and old, are considered collateral damage.
- Jeb Bladine