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 [email protected] .]