From June 14: (click title to entry - thank you)..."We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living crap out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon. Everyone interviewed would say, Yeah, he was in my math class and he was really weird. I sit by the door with my purse handy. If you see it on the news one night, know that I got out fast..."
Loughner was a very disgruntled young man. The reports of him arguing with professors regarding grades, PROBABLY, showed how his family was attempting to have him take life seriously. He was not 'free falling' unnoticed.
We don't know what the family has been through either. Having a sincerely troubled young man in a household is very, very upsetting while trying to seek resolutions where resolutions can be found. I am confident many people if they reflect on acquaintances and their own family, perhaps their own family can somewhat identify with events that occur within our own understanding of these events. Perhaps not everyone knows of such circumstances in other's lives, but, they exist. There are more young men in the USA going through emotional shifts while 'out of reach' of any real resolve to their problems. This isn't necessarily a male problem, it is just that men tend to become aggressive while females tend to be passive and removed during difficult times in their lives.
It is a problem and the reason it is a problem is because we are a nation of 'personal freedoms.' Add to that the dynamics of 'merchanising' for economic purposes any personal freedom of a USA citizen has and there is evem more difficulty in 'reining in' people 'at the extremes.' And don't tell me the merchanising of American freedoms doesn't happen, that would be a huge lie.
Taking someone out of their day to day life and focus and earning and purchasing power is a huge dilemma for the judiciary considering the laws that oversee such events in a human life. When people are removed by police to a onfinement center to be evaluated for instaibility to harm themselves or others it disrupts their employment and in many instances in low paying jobs it could cost them that tenuous attachment to income and a potential beyond their current status.
When a citizen lives within a democracy dominated by capitalism whereby life is guaranteed to them through engagement of that capitalism, there is little tolerance of problems sush as missing work, not calling in to a supervisor because they were 'detained' and school assignments being handed in late; it only creates more emotional turmoil and more focus on 'the system' as the problem with the 'enhanced' injustice of 'failure' to be successful.
It might have been that a 22 year old young man bargained to be a student to improve his life in order to maintain a status with his family and their hopes were to have him 'straighten out.' The news reports included multiple visits to the family home. I guarantee you the family has been through plenty. If Loughner were 'smart enough' through trial and error to know what he could get away with 'in behavior' to stay out of reach of authorities there isn't any change in the law that is going to improve that EXCEPT to push 'tolerance' back a notch or two.
I doubt the family was interested in 'sheltering' him from sincere help, either.
There is no legislation anyone can write that will chanage this violence EXCEPT removing THE OPPORTUNITY to own and use assault weapons within the borders of the USA. Any PARTIAL measure short of that, will definately result in other and maybe even increasing violence within the USA.
WHERE are the studies that say differently?
The 'Public Tone' definately has a place here. People such as Loughner achieve greater and greater validity for their 'power struggle' when it is validated in a 'faux purposeful' way that is exploited for commercial gain.
There may have been plenty of clues he may have been approaching aggression rather than 'self hurt,' but, I don't know that law enforcement could sincerely 'make that call' in a way that actually removes people from their lives. Judges are very, very careful about these issues. Lots of VALID reasons why they have to be. Sincerely HAVE TO BE.
This problem is a societal problem and not a legislative problem to control citizens and it is why 'weapons' have to be regulated and controlled because the people cannot necessarily be regulated, controlled or 'fit a logarithm' a computer could speak with to PREDICT what is coming next. Social problems have to be addressed through measures that dilute the ability of 'social members' to 'deliver on outcomes.' It is NOT necessarily a 'profit driven' approach NOR should it be.
In a society such as the USA whereby "The Second Amerndment" existed to ensure THIRTEEN original colonies from potential return of 'the king/ POTUS' it has no real meaning in a First World Country other than for reason of sports. If 'personal protection' is the answer realize a 'legal gun touting citizen' coming out of a store where the Congresswoman attended to her citizens' concerns nearly shot an innocent man that grabbed the gun from Loughner's hand, believing he was the gun man.
HELLO?
Wouldn't that have been interesting, huh? Citiznes believing that Loughner had an accomplish and shooting each other in the heat of the moment. It is a lousy idea that simply doesn't have credence in a civilized society. Guns should never be 'merchanized' as personal protection or as a 'shooters club.' Not that they don't occur, but, it should never be that imposing 'in the fermament.' Never.
Hate in any form should never be tolerated in public discourse. And hate backed up by actions and words is simply outrageous. Unthinkable. Even if only implied.
