It could happen anywhere

I have hesitated for two days to write about the Newtown massacre. I wanted to be sure my brain was engaged before opening my mouth, so to speak. Now that the hysteria has died down [Has it really? Ed.] and the stores are sold out of flowers, candles and teddy bears, perhaps we can begin a rational discussion.

Yesterday I saw a video clip of "streeters" -- interviews with men (and women) on the street -- around the world. Someone from Moscow said it could happen anywhere. Someone from Brazil said it could happen in his country because lots of Brazilians have guns, as do lots of Americans.

But the random killing of innocent people doesn't happen just anywhere, at least not with the alarming frequency with which it occurs in the USA. For the record -- and not blaming the Prez of course -- this is the fourth senseless massacre on his watch. Four years, four groups of grieving families, four sets of wounded survivors, four terrorized communities.

Not quite five months ago, a deranged man used a cinema in Aurora CO as a shooting gallery, leaving 12 corpses on the floor. Last year shootings in Tucson left six dead and 13 wounded, including Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who is slowly (but not completely) recovering. In November of 2009, 13 service members who were killed at Fort Hood by another soldier. And now this.

Some smug Canadians rushed to the on-line fora and speak-your-mouth shows to say such things could happen only in the sick society that is today's America. Apparently they forgot or ignored a couple of events in the Great Not-so-white North.

On 6 December 1989, Marc Lépine, a deranged misogynist, singled out and killed 14 women l'École Polytechnique in Montréal. In 2006, again in Montréal, and again for reasons only he knew, a young man named Kimveer Singh Gill killed a business student and wounded 19 other people before turning his gun on himself.

Canada has much stricter gun control laws than most of the United States. Assault and other military-type weapons may not be owned, except by the military, police and other champions of justice. Few people are allowed to own hand guns -- legally -- and fewer still can get permits to carry such. Canada's laws did not stop Lépine and Gill.

Is the answer tighter gun control laws? After the Colorado shooting in July, the White House made clear that Obama would not propose new gun restrictions. There was an election going on, you see, and millions of Americans still believe the Second Amendment is to be taken literally. About the most anyone with a hope of getting elected can say in an election year is that existing laws should be better enforced, more must be done to help the disturbed and deranged, yada yada yada.

Now that he's safely back in the White House, Obama said (at last night's vigil in Newtown) that the killing must stop. And, he said, America must change. He only talks about change, now, not hope. But, when the nation cries out for leadership on this issue -- an issue of life and death, literally -- the Great Partly-white Hope offers... well... Nothing.

It is with some reluctance that Walt puts his toe into the murky waters of the gun control debate, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the more people have guns, the greater are the chances of another Newtown.

Statistical analysis has never been my long suit, but here is a little experiment you can try at home. Take a deck of playing cards. Remove three cards. Put in one joker. You now have 50 cards, including one joker and 49 "normal" cards.

Let the joker represent someone who is emotionally or mentally disturbed. Shuffle the deck. Now assume that 20% of your cohort (the entire 50 cards) has access to a gun. Deal out 10 cards. Is the joker in the first ten? No? That's good luck then, as the odds were (roughly) 5 to 1 on the crazy person being one of the 10 gun owners. Increase the percentage of gun owners to 30%, or the number of jokers to two. What are the odds now?

Lesson: You've got next to no chance of reducing the number of crazy people in today's America (or any other country). So if you want to increase the odds against a lunatic shooting someone, your best bet is to reduce the number of guns in circulation. Lifetime pct .983.

Walt can think of two arguments that might be raised against this proposition. Someone is bound to say that some of my 50 "cards" must be children. Answer: a loaded gun in the hands of a 5-year-old is about the same as a loaded gun in the hands of someone with a mental capacity of 5. Especially if you're looking at the wrong end of the gun.

The second argument is that if you completely ban handguns or all guns, the criminals will still have guns and the law-abiding citizens won't. Yesterday, Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) told Fox News that the tragedy could have been prevented if only the school principal had herself been armed. "I wish to God," Gohmert said, "she had had an M-4 in her office...so when she heard gunfire she pulls it out and...she takes him out, takes his head off, before he can kill those precious kids."

Louie... Listen, Louie... We're not talking about criminals here. The gangstas with the long rap sheets [Is that what we mean by "aspiring rapper" nowadays? Ed.] will always have guns, sure. But we're talking not about diamonds or spades [That's enough innuendo. Ed.] but about the joker in the deck -- the sicko beset by feelings of inadequacy or rage who goes to his mother's bedroom, takes the Glock out of night table and goes out to blow away the next nine (or nine dozen) people he sees.

Walt's argument for stricter gun control is not perfect. I think a man should be able to have a long gun -- a rifle or shotgun, not an assault weapon -- with which to go out and kill a couple of squirrels for the stew pot. And I don't much like the idea of the police -- the Bullies in Blue -- being the only ones who have guns. But reducing the number of firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens is about the only solution I can think of. If you have a better idea, don't write to me. Send it to the Prez, c/o the White House, Washington DC.

Government can't save us from all harm: Ron Paul

We don't hear anything about him in the lamestream media these days, but Ron Paul is still alive and out there, speaking out for liberty and freedom. Earlier this week he shared some wise words on can be done to prevent a repetition of the Aurora massacre. His advice? Don't look to government to deliver you from evil. Here's an excerpt:

We should...face the sober reality that government cannot protect us from all possible harm. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, no matter how routinely we monitor internet communications, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm. We as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.

Furthermore, it is the role of civil society rather than government to build a culture of responsible, peaceful, productive individuals. Government cannot mandate morality or instill hope in troubled individuals. External controls on our behavior imposed by government through laws, police, and jails usually apply only after a terrible crime has occurred.

Internal self-governance, by contrast, is a much more powerful regulator of human behavior than any law. This self-governance must be developed from birth, first by parents but later also through the positive influence of relatives and adult role models. Beyond childhood, character development can occur through religious, civic, and social institutions. Ultimately, self-governance cannot be developed without an underlying foundation of morality.

Click here to listen to the complete audio file.

Mr. Paul isn't going to win the Republican nomination. (Lifetime pct .984) But his campaign for liberty goes on. Click here to join the Ron Paul Revolution. Tell him Walt sent ya!

An arsehole with an arsenal... more or less?

Walt is no bleeding-heart, let's-all-make-nice gun control advocate. I confess to a certain youthful fascination with firearms, often in combination with white-and-reds cocktails and loud music. Playing Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture on a stereo cranked up to "Mother" and supplying your own cannon-fire -- shotgun blasts will do nicely -- to augment the finale is an experience exhilirating to the point of being aphrodisiacal.

Such things should be done, though, out in the back 40... not in crowded cinemas. A Jamaican salute to the New Year or other holiday isn't cool if innocent bystanders get hurt or killed.

Which brings me to the Aurora Massacre, the reason why Walt has been MIA the last couple of days. I have been trying to think of something cogent and witty to say. I have failed.

What kind of mind, what kind of personality says to itself: I think today I'll go take in a flick, maybe blow away a dozen or so of those damn ordinary people, just to see what it feels like.

That's if there is a mind, a sentient human being applying some kind of thinking process to the concept. Which is doubtful. Did James Holmes really think this through? The facts revealed so far would seem to suggest he did.

He spent weeks ordering and receiving an arsenal of weapons. Somehow, somewhere he acquired the suit of body armor and other colour-coordinated accessories. Not to mention all the D-I-Y work required to booby-trap his apartment so as to take out a few law enforcement officers and perhaps himself in one final Götterdammerung. The last part is speculation, which brings us back to pondering what he had in mind.

If anything. The argument will surely be advanced that the man is sick, sick, sick. Out-to-lunch insane. Totally gonzo and not in the amusing way. That's what "progressive thinkers" always say. There are no bad people, just people who are "depraved on account of they're deprived" as Stephen Sondheim wrote.

Maybe James Holmes was attacked by a bat in his childhood. Maybe he was so under the influence of mind-altering substances that he saw it as his duty to blow away all the creatures in the bat-cave of a cinema. Who knows?

Nobody knows except James Holmes. And you can bet he's been advised by every attorney he's talked to to keep his mouth shut. Let us guess... yeah. This is a case where silence is going to be the best possible defence. Let the shrinks pick his orange wig all they like. What conclusion could they reach other than that his cheese done slipped off his cracker, just like that Percy Wetmore in The Green Mile.

End result? Holmes spends a few years in the laughing academy until another set of shrinks decide he's not a threat any more, and then they turn him loose. I hope they let us know where and when that happens.

As for making it a little harder for the average deranged American to get his hands on anything more powerful than a cap gun, don't count on anything happening anytime soon. The NRA is way too powerful. Besides, as Toronto police chief Bill Bliar would say, this is just another "isolated incident".