The tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School seems to have
offended our sensibilities more than other such tragedies because of the ages
of the victims. But in reality, this
tragedy was not significantly different or worse than other such events –
innocent lives should never be lost at the hands of a crazed or deranged
person. The term “gun violence” is
always a prominent part of stories about these events, and the anti-gunners
capitalize on that fact to put their emphasis on the wrong word: the crux of the problem is violence, not
guns.
While not the warm and fuzzy, politically correct
philosophical ideal, it is nonetheless an absolute fact that it is simply and
literally impossible to identify all the people who will do bad things and/or
to accurately predict what bad things they will do and/or when and where they
will do them. Period.
Since bad things will undoubtedly happen regardless of our
wishes, intentions and preventive efforts (because there is no such thing as
absolute security, meaning some system/strategy that will protect against any
conceivable or possible threat at all times), it behooves us to have the best
mitigation, response and recovery strategies in place to protect everything
important (meaning people, physical things and information).
Security must be considered at least as important and
necessary as our attitudes and endeavors related to fire, which we have
embraced and incorporated wholeheartedly:
While it is nice to idealize that people and things won’t burn and hope
that “…it can’t happen here,” yet we
still design and implement (and pay for) reasonable and sometimes mandated fire
protection precautions into our buildings; and install fire control systems and
have fire response equipment in our buildings; and have regular fire system
inspections; and have extensive fire plans that are reviewed and updated
regularly; and have regular fire drills; and have internal personnel properly
trained to deal with fires; and have Fire Departments to come and put out fires
when they occur; and have plans to maintain and/or resume operations after a
fire event. Why is the same not so for security?
Why are places with adequate and sufficient fire control
systems and procedures not considered “fire traps,” but places with adequate
security systems and procedures are considered “armed fortresses?” When I walk
into a building and see sprinklers on the ceiling and fire extinguishers at key
places and evacuation route maps and “No Smoking” signs on the walls and a fire
truck parked outside, I get a feeling of comfort – the thought never crosses my
mind that this building must pose some grave fire danger. Why do we not put commensurate emphasis on
security? Why do we not see alarm
systems and CCTV cameras and monitors and uniformed – perhaps armed – security
personnel as an indication of concern for our safety and security?
Logic and consistency do not seem to be traits held in
esteem by anti-gun proponents, because in virtually no other situation do they
condemn the tool used in a bad consequence as the cause or culprit: When a porch pulls away and falls from a
house killing/injuring partygoers, the hammer is not blamed. When a pedestrian is killed by a drunk
driver, the car is not blamed. When an
editorial or cartoon is written that enflames and angers the masses, the
typewriter/computer is not blamed Only
when it comes to guns is the tool rather than the actor condemned.
We learned (or should have learned) from Benghazi that
diplomatic and bureaucratic and philosophic options are meaningless at the time
of an attack, because without proper response capability good people die. When my family is being threatened with
grave harm and I am not present to intervene, I do not want a philosopher or
psychologist or social worker or a book of social ills analysis there – I want
“…rough men (who) stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would
do us harm.”
Posts
