Virginia Tech

In this morning's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer "What can be said about the Virginia Tech massacre? Very little. What should be said? Even less." He goes on to complain that in the wake of the murder of 31 people by a student who had been identified as dangerous by classmates, teachers, and a psychiatrist, some are having the audacity to call for gun control and confinement of people whose mental diseases make them a threat to themselves or others. I have seldom agreed with Krauthammer; he seems to be convinced that in the course of earning degrees in both law and medicine, he learned all there is to know and he never makes any response to arguments with which he disagrees. He now reveals himself as utterly lacking in insight and compassion.
A friend of mine made a thought-provoking statement about gun control. Speaking of the Romanian faculty member who had survived the Holocaust, he pointed out that the Nazis, the embodiment of evil, could not kill the man, and the Communists, whom we were told were an evil empire, could not kill him, but Virginia's gun laws could. Gun controls are imperfect, but does Krauthammer really think that it's okay for someone who has been identified as an imminent danger by a psychiatrist to walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun?
I believe in civil liberties, but they are not absolute. When people drink and drive and are caught, they lose their licenses. If they persist, they go to jail. People are, of course, free to drink--but not if they endanger others by doing so. Shouldn't the same principle apply with the mentally ill?
And wouldn't you think that a psychiatrist familiar with the grief process would at least keep quiet if he couldn't show some compassion. Instead, he says to the families of the victims and to the survivors, "Shit happens. Get over it."
And Krauthammer, shortsighted, uncaring, egomaniac that he is, overlooks that we must talk about this tragedy. We must ask why. It seems to me that this society has become increasingly tolerant of outrageous speech. Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly spew their over-emotional, unsupported venom from the safety of the radio studio and this society says they are speaking courageously and we make them millionaires. We tolerate an administration that responds to what it takes as affronts with bluster. And it is not a long leap from speech to action. These outrageous people are valorized; they are, in effect, held up as examples. As they define the world in terms of friends and enemies and argue for the destruction of enemies, those who listen to them become less interested in getting along with other people. And when a madman defines the world as his enemy, when he is not restrained, when he is allowed to buy weapons, risk rises unnecessarily.
So Mr. Krauthammer, I will be writing to the Post and suggesting that they cancel your column. If you still appear on Inside Washington, I'll write to the producers and make the same suggestion. And frankly, I hope you'll have to make do with your savings for the rest of your life.