Another argument against
banning weapons in any form is that it destroys our Second Amendment rights to
bear arms. But all the rights granted us in the Constitution have limitations.
For example, despite our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, we cannot
use profanity in this book nor can we use sexist or racist vocabulary.
Clearly the Second
Amendment says no one has the right to take away our right to bear arms. We
doubt, however, that the founding fathers would have supported the right of the
dangerously mentally ill to own assault weapons whose main purpose is to kill
human beings.
A ban on assault weapons,
which are intended for use by the military and law enforcement, is not a ban on
our individual rights. Such a ban is a step toward sanity in protecting average
citizens and guaranteeing them the right to life and the pursuit of all the
freedoms guaranteed us in the Constitution. We would argue that such a ban
helps guarantee the rights of all citizens to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.
The public, then, is
being duped when it comes to what is being done to keep our schools safe and
prevent school shootings. The far right of our political spectrum has framed
the argument solely in Second Amendment terms, wrapping themselves in a blanket
of constitutional patriotism and labeling all those who question them as
unpatriotic. The hysterical tone of these self-described patriots has reached
such a crescendo that it drowns out any talk of protecting the Second Amendment
and keeping guns out of the hands of
those who are dangerously mentally ill. Furthermore, even a hint that
incompetent school and police officials have played roles in these killings
cannot be heard over the din. Holding people accountable for their actions or
inactions that result in injury or death is brushed aside in the frenzied
rhetoric.
The result is that two
issues critical to improving school safety (keeping guns out of the hands of
people who are dangerously mentally ill as well as holding people accountable
for their actions or inactions that facilitate these murderous rampages) are
not heard, much less discussed.
Thousands of dollars have
been and are being spent on warning systems, period. A considerable amount of
time and effort has been expended on drawing up security and safety
regulations, but once these regulations are in place, it takes a human being to
activate such a system. In other words, no matter how good an electronic system
is, how well thought out safety rules are, it always boils down to the human
factor—to those who have the authority to make decisions. And if there is one
lesson to be learned from the Virginia Tech massacre, it is that people failed
to do their duty—to warn. Those in authority who failed to warn have not been
held liable.
Under Virginia Tech’s
Emergency Response Plan in effect on April 16, 2007, it was the Emergency
Response Resources Group (a.k.a. ERRG in Tech’s plan) that had the authority,
and responsibility, for sending out a warning. President Steger was part of the
Policy Group, which, per the plan, sat above the ERRG. Therefore, according to
the plan, Steger had no responsibility to send out a warning. Chief Flinchum,
however, had the authority to issue a warning based on the school’s published
Timely Warning procedure in compliance with the Clery Act to issue a warning,
but he did not do so. Secretary Duncan cited the conflict between Virginia
Tech’s published timely warning procedure and internal procedure 5615, which
was not well known. The Emergency Plan was under a different jurisdiction (see
below). The school’s leadership did
not follow either its Emergency Plan or Timely Warning procedures as
written—neither Steger nor Flinchum have been asked to answer for that.
At the Appalachian School
of Law, President Lucius Ellsworth belittled faculty members’ requests for
campus security, chalking their concerns up to “women’s hormones” and
assuring them nothing would happen. Within weeks, three people were dead and
three more seriously wounded. Ellsworth has never been called to task for his
disregard of security.
The pattern is the same
over and over again—dangerously mentally ill people getting their hands on
guns, people in positions of authority turning their backs on warning signs,
and innocent people being gunned down. As of this writing, no one appears ready
to hold individuals accountable for their failure to act and to warn when faced
with an imminent danger of violence—that
is true for both Virginia Tech and the Appalachian School of Law. The pattern
is there: poor decisions, inactions, and no accountability.
The publicity surrounding
improved warning systems gives the public a false sense of security, gives the
politicians and school officials the fig leaf they need to say they are doing
something. But unless these expenditures on new warning and security systems
are coupled with holding people accountable, nothing meaningful is being done,
and doing nothing is not an option; the stakes are too high—they are the lives
of our children and loved ones. (To be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment