Surprise, surprise. There has been another killing spree involving a mentally-disturbed individual and gun-control liberals can offer nothing more than their same tired old response. To wit, we need more gun-control laws. Elliot Rodger apparently obtained his guns legally, but does any thinking person really believe that even matters in this tragic situation? When will gun-control liberals admit that it is the people behind the guns, not the guns themselves who are at fault in these tragedies? When will they admit that tragedies like the Rodger killing spree occur because responsible people—police, parents, teachers—fail in their responsibility to act immediately in these cases involving mentally-disturbed people. How many times do disturbed, hate-filled people like Elliot Rodger have to broadcast their intentions to the world before those around them will stop impotently wringing their hands and act?
Much has been said in the media about actions taken by the parents of Elliot Rodger and a school counselor, but what is not said is that they took much longer to act than logic would suggest reasonable. Friends, family, counselors, and teachers knew they were dealing with a time bomb long before Elliot Rodger exploded. How many times does a situation like this have to recur before people in positions of authority and responsibility will put aside their hesitation and act in the best interests of society rather than worrying about the rights and feelings of mentally-disturbed people who are about to erupt? By the time Elliot Rodger’s parents, school counselors, and teachers decided to take action, Elliot Rodger was already mowing down innocent people who did not even know him. And, of course, gun-control liberals and their cohorts in the mainstream media wasted no time in exploiting the grief of the parents of victims. Naturally, the parent who is seen most on national television is the one who is most vocal about supporting the nefarious agenda of gun-control liberals.
My question for gun-control liberals is this: Do you really want to stop these senseless killing sprees or do you just want to score political points by exploiting grieving parents? The reason I ask this question is that a problem cannot be solved until we are willing to ferret out the root cause and eliminate it—or at least mitigate it to the extent possible. Much bigger forces are at work in these tragic situations than gun-control liberals are willing to admit. To illustrate what I mean, consider this scenario. Tens of thousands of young men the same age as Elliot Rodger are spurned by young women every day. It happens all the time and is an occupational hazard among young males of the species. Learning to handle rejection by the opposite sex is a normal part of growing up for boys and young men.
I doubt there is a man reading this column who does not remember being shunned, ignored, turned down, or otherwise spurned by one or more young ladies. I certainly have memories along these lines. But consider the difference between those of us who were spurned by women as young adults and Elliot Rodger. Unlike Rodger, we did not take up arms and go on violent rampages. Was this because we did not have guns or at least access to them? I doubt it. I certainly had access to guns at that age. Rather, we did not respond to the embarrassment of female put downs by going on killing sprees for the simple reason that we are not crazy. Elliot Rodger did what he did not because he had guns, but because he was a mentally-disturbed young man who should have been confined in a treatment center.
What I would like to know is this: Where is the mental health industry in the great gun-control debate? Psychologists and psychiatrists know that much of the gun violence in America is perpetrated by mentally-disturbed people who should not even be walking around freely much less carrying weapons. When will these mental health professionals speak out? When will they join the debate? The silence of mental health professionals in the gun-control debate is deafening. Elliot Rodger should have been on the couch of a psychiatrist, not living in his own apartment and driving his own car. The man was a walking time bomb on the loose among innocent law-abiding citizens.
The inconvenient truth that gun-control liberals refuse to acknowledge is that if we kept violent criminals locked up, made timely use of the death penalty for those who commit murder, and provided appropriate treatment for the mentally-disturbed, gun-violence problems would virtually dry up in America. But liberals like to coddle criminals, invest enormous amounts of money fighting the death penalty, and are too politically correct to even suggest that an obvious lunatic is mentally disturbed. This, then, is why we have a gun violence problem in America—not the lack of gun-control laws. We already have more gun-control laws on the books than law enforcement personnel can enforce. We do not need to get guns off the streets per se—we need to get the criminals and mentally-disturbed people who use them off the streets.