Yesterday was a very sad day for our country.
MOTUS, like every other citizen, is heartbroken. Our betters have already rushed to their microphones, soap boxes and pulpits to ask why we don’t have the kind of gun control they have in Norway.
Those of us who have somehow managed to maintain our wits about us in this bizarre culture ask a different question: why are so many obviously insane people allowed to move about so freely in society? Why is it that, although there have always been guns, there haven’t always been the number of mass murders we’re experiencing as of late?
Is it the number of guns? Societal breakdown? Our culture of violence? Hollywood? While there’s probably a kernel of truth in all the usual suspects, a more likely culprit may be the policy implemented by our betters which determined that mental institutions were horror chambers that inhumanely incarcerated people simply because they didn’t conform to the standards society determined to be normal (how judgmental).
As is often the case with good intentions, the “deinstitutional movement,” initiated in 1964 and fully implemented in the 1970’s, the “solution” did not fix the root problem. There are still just as many crazy people in society, only now they live amongst us free to act out their psychotic fantasies: unless and until they confess or get caught.
Austin Sigg, confessed killer of Jessica Ridgeway
Although the mainstreaming of psychotics had been afoot since the passing of the Community Mental Health Act the final nail in the coffin that stopped the institutionalization of the crazies was a Ken Kesey movie (One Flew Over he Cuckoo’s Nest) which advanced the theory that the inmates were actually saner than their keepers. Hence, we should either let the inmates dictate the terms of their own incarceration or simply close the asylum and set the patients free.
If letting lunatics run the asylum is the new norm, we’re good to go:
Since the novel was written by a man who did his “research” under the influence of LSD and peyote buttons it is unclear why his conclusions would hold any credibility among the sane. Except for the fact that his story’s basic premise – that people in mental institutions are not “crazy” they’re just far more “individualized” and therefore superior to the rest of us mere mortals – fit the liberal’s agenda du jour of mainstreaming all butt the (convicted)criminally insane.
As with many schemes that are based on good intentions, this one has not worked out so well either. We are now dealing with the unintended consequences and as is often the case, they are devastating.
The crazies remain free to move about, because why would you want to spend money locking lunatics (whoops, I forgot we legislated that word out of existence last week) up who will never be able to (theoretically) vote for you? Especially when you can spend the money more efficaciously on condoms and contraceptives to defend them against the Republicans’ War on Women?
So a lot of our problems do stem from our culture: a culture of political correctness that doesn’t allow you to call dangerously crazy people “insane” let alone lock them up, doesn’t wish you to point out that terrorists may be more dangerous than conservative “haters,” and wants the good guys to give up their guns to set a good example for the bad guys.
So before we allow our betters to adopt their next “modest proposal” - which will surely focus on gun control – perhaps we should all take a little more time to analyze the unintended consequences of their empathetic solution.
Faces of evil and madness
Because in a sane society citizens are not locked up for trying to protect themselves, the homicidal maniacs are.
Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, and American Digest, and Clarice on JustOneMinute and Flopping Aces, and Mireille Buser and Thor Hammerhead on facebook, and BlogsLucianneLoves, and NOBO2012 on Free Republic, Thanks!
Posts
