Do you stop a Madman by attacking the Sane?!!

Like everyone else I’m shocked, saddened and outraged by the recent massacre in Aurora, Colorado. I continue to wonder what makes some people choose such heinous and senseless acts. Yet, also I’m left to wonder what new senseless reactions will birth the next army of lobbyists ready to pounce on this tragedy and how will our legislators use that to keep their jobs safe as opposed to the public and most poignantly, how in the end people will be made even more vulnerable as a result.

My recent research on the increasing laws restricting weapons, convince me more and more that they are usually reactionary to recent tragedies and/or based on unfounded theories, like no guns = less violence or more laws will stop another tragedy or psycho. Never mind that muggers, rapists, mass murderers, etc care little for the law…hence their chosen paths. Therefore a law saying they can’t have a gun isn’t likely to prevent them from acting. So really such reactive as opposed to reflective legislation leaves only the criminals armed and a police force, who can never be expected to stop the majority of them, let alone all of them. In the end, the only ones prevented from acting are law abiding citizens who end up never coming home from a walk in the park….or a night out at the movies.

Its easy to claim that those few and rare psychos can be prevented from going on a shooting rampage if guns were not available to them. But what is more true and what history and modern news stories have shown is that more and more restrictions don’t decrease likely perpetrators they increase likely victims. Do you think someone is just as likely to walk in shooting at a room full of people if he knew it was very possible that any or all of them might be able to put him down, before he can blink twice, let alone unload hundreds of bullets? Why do you think these “madmen” choose movie theaters, schools and office buildings and not cop bars and police stations? Do you really think its because they fear getting caught breaking the law and being arrested?!!!

The basic premise of gun control laws is that the people commit violence because they can, so a government must disarm the people in order to assure peace and freedom. Yet history time and again shows us the opposite, governments and criminals commit violence because they can and so the people must remain armed in order to keep them in check and thus assure their freedom and peace.

Our founding Fathers of this great nation knew this to be true, The premise of the Second Amendment is that tyranny, senseless death and despair came not by the strength imposed by the oppressors but by the weakness imposed on the oppressed. Whether it is gangs, thugs or tyrannical governments, their strength is ultimately measured by the weakness of their would be victims.


About behindtheyellowtape

Joey Ortega started his investigative career early at the age of 18 working as an apprentice investigator for local detectives. He started out doing insurance fraud investigations and background investigations. Proving adept in the areas surveillance and information gathering, Joey continued to seek further investigative challenges. From there he went on to do internal investigations for a number of companies that include; Sears, Roebuck Co., Saks Fifth Avenue, and K-mart. He was largely responsible for investigating issues of internal theft, embezzlement, workers comp fraud, and crime ring investigations. His success eventually earned him a position as a national investigator for a cellular chain, investigating crime rings on a national level. Trained in the Reid technique (interviewing/interrogation), Joey was able to gain confessions consistently without a single prosecution ever being challenged in court. Throughout his career as an internal investigator Joey continued to work for various private investigative agencies. Moving away from insurance fraud, Joey began developing his skills in the areas of criminal defense investigation, fidelity investigation, missing person’s investigations, and stalker investigations. It was the area of stalker investigations that Joey began to discover his passion for computer crime investigations. Having to learn quickly how to trace harassing and threatening emails, Joey began see that this is where the future of crime and justice was heading and decided to throw himself deeply into the subject. As a result, Joey’s clientele began to include those who were victims of internet fraud and cyber attacks. Joey is also the co-founder of The Ullemeyer Group, Inc. an investigative and training firm based in Santa Barbara, California that specializes in forensic training and consulting.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Do you stop a Madman by attacking the Sane?!!

  1. Leslie says:

    Very good point and I agree. Unarming the sane makes it easier for the mentally ill to and criminal types to take advantage with LESS risk on their part to accomplishing their so called “mission” I know that if my husband were there he would have been packing and he would have shot back. I can’t believe nobody was packing in that theater.

  2. Andrew Rey Ortega sr. says:

    My dear little brother, what you put down is so true. In tragedies across this nation it is the innocent who become the victims. And the perpatrater who is actuality a coward. The perps usually plan their attack out which makes it premeditated act ending with tax payers picking up the tab. Unfortunately it is acts that bring people back to calling out for God.

  3. You are right, there will be more attacks on the second amendment and, of course, video games will be blamed also. It is a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to all. I think we need to look deeper into our troubled society for the answers.

  4. The biggest problem is letting the assault weapons ban expire.That,and the easy access people have to buy 100+ magazines for those weapons on line.I’m not really interested,at this point,on the mental status of James Holmes.I am concerned that it took very little effort on his part to purchase an arsenal of guns,ammunition,and bomb making materials.We need to revisit the ban on assault weapons,and make them impossible for anyone,outside of law enforcement,to purchase.

  5. Prinnie says:

    My question is when one is so seriously mentally ill, as I believe Holmes is, how do you really “unring a bell” by waiting for him to get sane enough to take to trial? If someone is that mentally insane to do something this horrific, how can they possibly be truly held accountable for their actions while having a psychotic break? There is a great need in our country for better mental health care, and for people to be more empathetic towards the mentally ill. I’m willing to bet that this guy has had mental problems for a very long time, and sadly an individual has rights when it comes to treatment. This is just a bad situation all the way around. Even a gun ban is going to still put guns in the hands of people who should not have them. We all remember how well prohibition worked out, right? Where there is demand, someone will make sure there is supply.

  6. Linda says:

    And why would anyone want the criminals to be better armed than they are? Criminals have no respect for laws~ Only the law-abiding citizens do! It is obvious in the reading of our Constitution, that our Founders had little trust in governments and wrote our Constitution to state what the government could NOT do as opposed to what they can! Our current administration is doing everything it can to weaken the Constitution, taking away our rights and make us their subjects!
    They are already trying to use the theater massacre in Colorado to their advantage and to further restrict our gun rights. All under the false pretense of “protecting” us!

  7. Pingback: What Will The Government Go After Next? « Defining Values for Politics

  8. Bren says:

    Excellent points made here Joey… These people never attack people and places where they will be stopped as you say Joey. They never attack cop bars and police stations. And as Prinnie says, even if an all right ban on guns was made, someone will supply them when their is demand.

    But what I have noticed in this case (and pardon me I won’t use his name to give him notoriety) is that we are seeing a new type of mass killer, one that is just like the guy in Norway, who surrender themselves to the police, so that they could have their day in court or have their story told.

    In many cases, these people either turn the gun on themselves or they die in a hail of bullets by Law Enforcement, but in this case and the Norway case they surrendered.

    By all accounts, this guy told the police that the flat was booby trapped. Now if he wanted to kill and maim more he would not have said a word. He is not co-operating now, and answering questions so the question needs to be asked why did all of a sudden want to stop his death rampage?

    Could his co-operation purely have been because the media would and they did have live cameras at his apartment… He was still making the news even though he was caught. Is this what he wanted his 15 minutes of fame. Just like the Norway killer, even after he committed such atrocities we still gave them media coverage.

    Perhaps that is where we need to look at, the way the media handles these situations… Just like the child in a tantrum, if ignored, will give up because they are not getting what they want attention, could we be looking at if the Media cold-shouldered these killers, they might realise they don’t get their 15 minutes of fame?

  9. Bren says:

    Reblogged this on On My Front Porch.

  10. T. J. Jones says:

    A well stated debate of the facts. The U.S. Constitution was not written by its authors to provide citizens with individual Rights. The proposal is that certain inalienable rights are God given thus no government or individual can take them away from the people.

    On another note, having been personally involved in several armed conflicts and witnessed fight or flight syndrome. Having a pistol on one’s hip does not ensure one will stand and fight but it certainly gives some advantage to those who do. It also provides cover fire for those who choose to flee. The decision to defend one’s self and others against superior firepower with inferior firepower comes from the heart not by the mere right to bear arms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s