Dunblane and the Limits of Order

When the media frenzy over the Dunblane massacre dies down there will be a search for answers. I suspect the main lesson to be learned is the limits of the possible.

Here was an apparently orderly, law abiding and concerned community in a country that has made considerable efforts all this century to restrict public access to lethal weapons. Despite all this they could not prevent the tragedy.

Worse, it appears to have been partially or wholly triggered by their attempts to prevent a lesser evil, which in any case seems never to have eventuated.

Those with a blind faith in simple answers will continue to insist on greater efforts to remove the means to commit such crimes, and to identify people at risk of committing them.

The first is a pipe dream. Thomas Hamilton chose the most easily controlled means in a country that heavily restricts such weapons. If any means could have been denied him it should have been that one.

Besides, as the English are painfully aware, there are many means of killing large numbers of people, especially if the perpetrator does not care if he or she survives. Many of these means are so basic to the functioning of a modern society as to be impossible to control.

Which of course leaves identifying and neutralizing people likely to commit such acts.

But how? A lot of people are a bit strange by the standards of their society, yet go on to lead blameless and useful lives. If you are going to lock up everyone who makes you feel uncomfortable about a quarter of the population would be incarcerated, with the rest employed as prison guards.

Besides, what is considered dangerously strange depends a lot of current fashion. A while ago, in a country not far from England, it was felt that a certain group of people with a perceived propensity for financial and intellectual excellence fell into this category. It was decided that something had to be done about them.

Most of us now agree that what was done was wrong.

In a free society there is a point where further effort and restrictions no longer increase public safety and order. Totalitarian regimes reach that point sooner, if anything.

If excessive restrictions are seen as persecution by individuals and groups who feel they have done no wrong, those restrictions may well cause rather than prevent violence. The Americans are currently having a lot of trouble with conservative and religious groups for just this reason.

So, is there anything useful to be learned? Well, there are I think two things.

First, once all reasonable precautions are taken we just have to accept that not all evil can be prevented. Second, if a community is going to move against some of its members on pure suspicion, it is best done quickly and cleanly. Prolonged persecution (no matter how justified) is just asking for trouble.


The material herein is copyright.
Any reproduction without the prior permission of the author is forbidden.
Copyright 1996 Stephen Heyer