I don't even know the full story. I don't know where it happened, I only know it happened at some elementary school yesterday. I don't any details just that one first grader shot another first grader and I think the unnamed first grader may have taken shots at some others. The details, I believe, are unimportant for those of us who aren't directly involved.

Because the details will shed no light on anything.

Details didn't help at Columbine. We never really learned why they did it, we never really learned how it could have been prevented, we never really came to a national consensus on gun control or youthful disenchantment. The folks running for President will all discuss this tragedy and this is basically what they'll say:

"Terrible tragedy.... Blah blah blah... parents must teach... blah blah blah... guns out of the hands of children... blah blah blah... civil society... blah... return to faith in God... blah... values... blah... life... blah... tough laws... blah... "

That is also what the local officials will say and what the politicians already in office will say and what the news pundits and the citizens and cops and the gun lobbyists will say. Let's talk about it until it goes away.

No one will say the truth, which is simple and easy.

I will now say the truth.

We don't know what to do.

Maybe that's not a helpful insight, but it's true. If we look at what we can do, we realize we have no idea what we should do. We could ban handguns in the U.S. But that is a socially untenable position. It would lead to a very bad situation when the government tries to confiscate guns from their enthusiastic owners. I don't care who's right or wrong on this, the point is that it will never happen. Too many politicians would have to lose their jobs and too many law enforcement lives would be lost and too many citizens would find themselves dead or in jail before it was all over. Then, after all that turmoil we'd still have some black market for guns and the same problems all over again. Yes, I think we have too many guns on the streets, but I also think you have to listen to the will of substantial portions of the populations, and gun owners are substantial. I don't think there's any solution to be found in an outright confrontation with gun owners. Also, I don't like telling people who haven't committed crimes to give up their property. I like to live and let live. So banning guns won't work and tightening gun control laws might help a little, but it won't stop these school shootings -- the guns are already in circulation.

Hold the parents responsible or go after the people who provided guns to the minors, or allowed through some negligence, guns to fall into a minor's hands. Not a bad idea in general, but it won't stop the school shootings. The school shootings are random acts, and their perpetrators, at whatever age, won't likely be deterred by the notion of that some adult, even their parents, might get into legal trouble. Laws might make the parents more vigilant, but the truth is (and this is the next point):

Parental vigilance can't stop kids form randomly flipping out. You can't actually expect the unexpected, you can't actually live inside a child's mind and you can't, monitor them every minute of the day for fear that they might commit some crime. Most children, after all, aren't insane or violent and should be treated as such. A little youthful angst is normal and not reasonable cause for adult intervention beyond some milk, cookies, and an offer to talk (all of which will probably be refused with a harsh "leave me alone!").

Religion will not stop the school shootings. Religious people are no less likely to flip out than secular people.

Censoring violence on television, movies, and music will not stop the shootings because the media doesn't actually cause random violence. Besides, the first amendment stands above the second in this country, and the portion of the population who wish to practice unfettered free speech is larger than those who own guns. The solution to the problem can't strip rights away from law abiding people, and it can't contradict the our founding principles. So censorship is not an option.

So what is an option?

I don't know. Maybe that is the option. A little humility and a little comfort with uncertainty. Why violence? Because people are desperate. I had many violent thoughts this weekend when a token dealer at the subway flipped me off for paying him in loose change. I felt desperately angry, I felt that if I could have hit him I would have, but he was shielded by bullet proof glass. What irked me, what drove me to the point of violent rage was that he insulted me and I was powerless to take revenge, to make him pay for slighting me. It was all very stupid. Perhaps if I were the kind of person who could say "I don't know" who could live with uncertainty, who could be wronged and not desire some sort of retribution, some sort of justice which would set things right in some totally...

Well, some totally stupid way. Our sense of justice, our sense of retribution comes from our sense of having to know all the answers. When we are confronted, as we often are, with the notion that you can't know the whole world, that nature doesn't exist by standards or right and wrong, we become indignant and insistent and we feel abused and sometimes, we lash out and people get hurt. This wouldn't happen if we didn't have to be right all the time, if we could admit that right in knowledge and right in ethics aren't fully attainable, if we were to all calm down, admit and forgive our imperfections and just live... maybe that would make things better.

But I really don't know.

Michael Maiello does strongly feel that personal tactical nukes should be outlawed.