Do It Again, Only HARDER!.
I note tonight that, once again, someone has gone to a “disarmed victim zone” (otherwise known as a school) with a firearm and committed mayhem. (I also note that this is major news in Australia, the UK, Israel, China, Bulgaria, South Africa and jeebus knows how many other foreign places. Yes, guns are terrible things here in the U.S. of A. More “victims of the Second Amendment,” I’m sure they’ll say.)
Those “gun-free zones” really do the job, don’t they? They make sure that anyone willing and capable of defending against someone intent on evil has no chance to intervene before things go completely to hell.
But this is SOP for people who blame not the perpetrators, but the weapons for these evil deeds. Once again, let me quote Steven den Beste on the topic of “cognitive dissonance”:
When someone tries to use a strategy which is dictated by their ideology, and that strategy doesn’t seem to work, then they are caught in something of a cognitive bind. If they acknowledge the failure of the strategy, then they would be forced to question their ideology. If questioning the ideology is unthinkable, then the only possible conclusion is that the strategy failed because it wasn’t executed sufficiently well. They respond by turning up the power, rather than by considering alternatives. (This is sometimes referred to as “escalation of failure”.)
Or, as I express it, “Do it again, only HARDER!“
Here’s another shining example.
California governator Arnold Schwarzenegger….
Well, you read it:
Legislation to protect domestic violence victims from gun violence signed into law
September 27, 2006
Need for legislation underscored after Evan Nash, a San Diego youth, was slain by his armed father.
SACRAMENTO – Governor Schwarzenegger yesterday signed legislation by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) that will provide additional protection for people seeking court protective orders under the Family Code.
“This law is dedicated to the memory of Evan Nash, the San Diego teen who tragically lost his life while under the protection of a family court protective order. His mother, Lucy Nash, fought to change the law to further protect victims of domestic violence,” said Senator Kehoe.
In 2003, Evan Nash’s estranged father shot and killed his son less than 24 hours after being served with a protective order. In the aftermath of the tragedy, Lucy Nash stated that she thought Evan’s father’s firearms would be confiscated at the time his protective order was served, and that had she known they would not be confiscated, she would have moved her son to safety.
Specifically, Senate Bill 585:
1. Adds additional provisions to the Family Code to allow law enforcement to consider seeking the immediate surrender of a firearm from a person served with a protective order.
2. Reduces from 72 hours to 48 hours the time frame by which a person served with a protective order must show proof to a court that they either sold or surrendered their firearms.
3. Requires that application forms for protective orders ask what types of firearms are in the possession of the respondent.
“Unfortunately, in some cases the issuance of a protective order is followed by an assault or even murder,” said Senator Kehoe.
You don’t say!
“In certain circumstances, it is important to remove the guns as quickly as possible after a protective order has been served to help increase public safety.”
But which cases? And how do you tell?
Last year, Evan’s mother, Lucy Nash, traveled from San Diego to Sacramento to testify in support of the measure. SB 585 will take effect January 1, 2007.
I’ve had to stop banging my head against hard surfaces. I’ve beaten too many of them into crumbling dust.
How many absurdities can you count in that one story?
1. While California has handgun registration, I don’t believe they have long gun registration, so how are they supposed to know that someone turned everything in?
2. This law trusts that the target of such an order will actually comply, especially if he’s planning violence. You know, in those few cases that actually lead to murder? It’s worked so well in the past, hasn’t it?
3. If they can’t keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons (i.e. known felons), how do they expect to keep them out of the hands of people with restraining orders if they really, really want one?
4. If someone with a restraining order really wants to kill someone, there are other methods besides guns, but this law is concerned not with violence, only gun violence.
5. The law supposedly disarms the perpetrator of domestic violence in 48 hours, rather than the completely unreasonable 72 hours – yet the bill is passed giving credit to a case in which the perpetrator killed within the new timeframe!
How many more can you come up with?
But if the previous law didn’t work, do it again, only harder!
The next iteration will drop the time period to 24 hours, I suppose? And when the next violent offender hands his firearms in ammunition first?
If Ms. Nash had understood that the government is not responsible for her (or her son’s) protection, then she might have done what was necessary to protect herself and her son. Instead, she depended on the State to protect her. She depended a piece of paper. But now other women will still think that a restraining order will provide more protection than the paper it’s printed on.
But the ideology cannot be wrong. The only possible conclusion is that the strategy failed because it wasn’t executed sufficiently well, so DO IT AGAIN, ONLY HARDER!
What will they do about “Gun-Free School Zones” now? Increase the radius of the exclusionary zone?