Opinion

Latest killing spree raises questions

By MONROE ROARK
mroark@TheCitizenNews.com

In the wake of the latest workplace killing spree to captivate our country, some thoughtful examination is in order.

As most everyone knows, a man in a Boston suburb is reported to have shot and killed seven coworkers Tuesday in the offices of an Internet company. One report said Michael McDermott was armed with an assault rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a semiautomatic pistol at the time.

Investigators are reportedly looking into whether the incident was in any way related to McDermott's troubles with the Internal Revenue Service, which included the possible garnishment of his wages to pay back taxes.

Question One: This is perhaps the easiest one. How could this happen in a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country?

Although Massachusetts has some of the more stringent controls on gun ownership, it is doubtful that the mainstream media will give that fact much attention. McDermott's rampage casts considerable doubt, and rightfully so, on the effectiveness of stopping criminals by making it illegal for them to possess certain firearms.

Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that you can arm yourself to the teeth and do whatever you wish, regardless of the laws in place, if you want to badly enough.

Question Two: If Edgewater was indeed garnishing McDermott's wages on behalf of the IRS, why should the government put an employer in that precarious position?

Having an employer serve as a collection agent is not only an improper delegation of duty, but it looks like a procedure that can put other employees in grave danger.

If an unstable individual has a beef with the IRS, the government should not give him or her any motivation to take it out on the company.

Question Three: If McDermott is eventually tried and found to have some sort of mental defect, what are the odds that the same malady the court decides caused him to commit this horror is a condition that his employers did not know about?

I think that's a good possibility. I also think there's a good chance that had Edgewater known about any condition McDermott might have had, antidiscrimination laws could have prevented the company from using that information to keep from hiring him. I'm not saying that's definitely the case here, but the legal system in this country makes such a scenario very plausible. Anyway, it's more likely that privacy laws made it impossible to find out about him in the first place.

While you ponder these thoughts, I'll leave with one more.

Question Four: If one of McDermott's coworkers had been in the habit of carrying a small pistol for self-defense, what might the final body count have been?

[Monroe Roark can be reached at mroark@TheCitizenNews.com.]

Back to News Home Page | Back to the top of the page