I Read Up on the Aftermath of an Awful Shooting

Shooting in Uvalde · I Read Up on the Aftermath of an Awful Shooting

French papers have a tendency to follow US affairs closely sometimes, so, Le Monde gave references on how Trump and Cruz defend the second amendment.

While I am myself not happy with concentration of guns into the hands of select troops controlled (to some degree) by politicians and formalising to some degree neighbourhood bullying of marginal people, and so I tend to defend Second Amendment (which we don't have that much over here in Europe, we wrote no Constitution in 1776, as far as I recall, any country) ... there are ways of defending it I disagree with.

Trump called for better background checks - and the shooter wasn't known to law enforcement in advance.
Trump called for more psychiatry - well, Ramos was an unhappy person, but "not sure that" more power to an institution that has a trackrecord for making people miserable, and that longer than compulsory or near necessary school would have made him happy. I am nearly positive it wouldn't, though he could have been the lucky one.
Ted Cruz suggested single entries watched over by the police - like airports after 9/11 ... seriously,

• the point of the second amendment is precisely to defend us against overbearing displays of armed power by the government, not expose us to it;
• airports and metal detectors, look up Bishop Williamson's essay "Airport tyranny" - and yes, the measure would make school entries a place where some security personnel take on the task of controlling certain persons' lives because they look suspect to them, that along with psychiatry would polarise society with less and less actual producers into more and more either watched over or watching over people;
• if this and as long as this polarisation is avoided, such watching over school entries will not be done across the field and will not guarantee there is no more shooting.

Neither will allowing people to quit school early and still have decent lives, or allow people to marry early. Some are not lucky.

But neither of the two protested against the de facto tyranny school environments exercise (to the dismay of some unlucky people) and neither of the two seemed alert to the fact that their suggestions (the ones I am criticising here) are attacking something bigger than the second amendment, namely ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...

Since, more powers to psychiatry and enhancing police control are at variance with these goals.

I thought both could have seen from Fauci's moves that it's incorrect that a new emergency should radically change the deal. Or forgot that taking away the second amendment or hollowing it is not the only way in which this could happen. Indeed, a red flag law would take away from those most needing them a protection against psychiatric tyranny, and in 2007, a psychiatrist issued a red flag in Nyköping, and the police who came to take away the gun, not all of them survived. The man is now in psychiatric treatment for life, but the psychiatrist seems to have had no punishment for causing these deaths by a failrure to "let sleeping dogs lie" when nothing worse came to light as a "red flag" than the man considering him, the psychiatrist, as worthy of death.

In the end, psychiatrists and police cease to be accountable. Which is what one would really want to avoid, since it affects more than a shooter killing 21./HGL

PS. I read a notice on there being many school shootings before Uvalde this year. There have been 27 shootings, and 27 overall killed, of which 21 in this shooting (meaning, police killing a shooter is not included), and 6 in other shootings. Most shootings have no person killed./HGL