The Newtown Massacre: Gun Free Drones
I may offer some additional thoughts as this post goes on, but the quotes from some of my Friends In The Ether that follow express my thinking, probably better than I could have…
Just now, one of my 20-year-old twin sons came by the house to help with the family Christmas tree. The TV was reporting this crime, which was the first he’d heard of it. “Twenty-seven people? What the hell happened?”
“Evil,” I said, and made the darkly sarcastic suggestion that Congress would pass the “Evil Control Act of 2013″ to outlaw evil.
Dark sarcasm is just a habit, and perhaps not the best way of expressing my frustration toward idiots…whose reaction to news like this is to share her cheery enthusiasm for new federal gun-control legislation.
-From a post by him late last night:
“Obviously not well.” In other words, Adam Lanza was nuts.
Psycho, loony, bonkers, daft, zany, berserk and cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
Advocates for the mentally ill discourage such colloquial terms as tending to stigmatize psychiatric patients. But we might ask whether stigma — and the consequent damage to the fragile self-esteem of kooks — is really worse than turning loose a homicidal schizo who kills 27 people.
I saw we might ask that, except that it’s politically incorrect to do so. We have been carefully taught that wackos are victims, and we’re not supposed to talk about the possibility that they might also be dangerous, lest we infringe the “rights” of murderous lunatics.
To quote Dirty Harry, “Well, I’m all broken up over that man’s rights.”
Our culture has lost all sense of perspective, of reasonable balance, so that we are unable to make common-sense judgments about risks. Which is the greater danger: That a schizophrenic might have his feelings hurt, or that a schizophrenic might go off his meds and kill people?
Common sense is quite nearly illegal nowadays and it’s certainly unfashionable in the Obama Age. So the usual liberal dingbats — including the ACLU types who assured us it was “a fearless, independent life style” for a crazy woman to defecate in public on the streets of Manhattan — are telling us we need more gun control.
And I say, no, what we need is more kook control. But no member of Congress in either party would have the guts to introduce “The Dangerous Lunatic Incarceration Act of 2013,” which would put wackjobs like Adam Lanza some place where they couldn’t kill people.
…Mute horror seems appropriate as a first response to such obscene displays of malevolence. But already one is hearing the predictable homilies about “gun control,” as if depriving people of their liberties would somehow contravene evil. Some wacko loads up some firearms and murders a couple score innocent people, ergo certain moralists conclude that they must confiscate guns from the rest of us. Had a few teachers been packing heat, the twisted soul who murdered his mother and those school kids might have been stopped after getting off but a couple of shots. Who knows how many lives might have been saved?
-Former NYPD Detective John Baeza has no doubts on this matter [tip of the fedora to Sdferr][the video is not embeddable at this time]:
God Bless you, sir, for saying what must be said.
-Instapundit on ‘gun free zones':
Policies making areas “gun free” provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren’t stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it’s the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law.
This vulnerability makes some people uncomfortable. I teach at a state university with a campus gun-free policy, and quite a few of my students have permits to carry guns. After the Virginia Tech shooting a few years ago, one of them asked me if we could move class off campus, because she felt unsafe being unarmed. I certainly would have felt perfectly safe having her carry a gun in my presence; she was, and is, a responsible adult. I feel the same way about the other law students I know who have carry permits.
Gun-free zones are premised on a lie: that murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers. That’s an insult to honest people. Sometimes, it’s a deadly one…
-Glenn and his readers rip Rupert Murdoch a new one and it’s well-deserved. A highlight:
IN RESPONSE TO TODAY’S SHOOTING, WHICH DIDN’T INVOLVE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, Rupert Murdoch asks: “When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons?”Appalling ignorance.
MORE: Reader Mike Puckett wonders what kind of weapons Murdoch’s bodyguards carry. I’d ask via Twitter, but, well . . . But hey, Rupert: What kind of guns do your bodyguards carry? And why are you more deserving of armed protection than ordinary Americans? You can email me through the blog.
-A picture from Joan Of Argghh!’s post, entitled:
Obama Responds With Tears.
Israel Responds With Teeth.
This is the only course of action that should be taken. America, thanks to the triumph of Leftism in all areas of our Society, has brought about a degeneration of our Culture into Barbarism. Must as had to be done in The Old West, we have to now be armed most of the time as the forces of Chaos, especially Lawlessness And Disorder, gain Power and Control.
-I end with Jeff Goldstein, who expresses exactly the way my thinking on this matter runs [worth quoting in full]:
Predictable as the sunrise. Sayeth the Light Bringer and erstwhile armory to the Mexican drug cartels:
As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it is an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago, these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods and these children are our children. And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.
Yes. And we can begin “coming together” by stoking race hatred, engaging in class warfare, and terming our political opponent “enemies,” or “teabaggers,” or mental defectives — then use every last tragedy, be it the shooting of Gabby Giffords or the Aurora theater shooting or the murder suicide of an NFL linebacker or the Oregon mall shooting or today’s shooting at a Connecticut elementary school, as an opportunity to restrict a basic human right, the right to self-defense (a right disallowed, incidentally, by the law-abiding players in many of these tragedies, thanks to gun-free school zones, or gun-free movie theaters, etc.). That is, we can pretend our rank and disgusting political opportunism is some moral cloak, to be draped on like public finery only when it can be used to push a leftist agenda. This is what you mean by taking “meaningful action,” and everyone knows it.
Only, here’s the meaningful action we should all be taking, were we truly serious about reducing the likelihood of such tragedies taking place going forward: On a personal level, get a concealed carry permit, and ignore signs telling you to leave your guns in the car. If it’s concealed, and they don’t have metal detectors, then you aren’t carrying. Until you need to defend yourself. On a societal / political level, get rid of restrictions on guns in school zones and theaters and the like, because the people who go shoot up these places care not a whit about the restrictions — criminals by definition don’t follow the law — and so they haven’t a fear in the world that they’ll meet any kind of armed resistance.
The idea that doing away with firearms or particular types of firearms (here, the gunman left his rifles in the care and used pistols) will somehow magically restrain violent outbursts has been disproven in countries where strict gun laws are in effect. But most egregious of all about these canned arguments for gun control are that the people who make them either don’t know jack about firearms, or else know they full-well that gun bans or restrictions won’t don’t anything but exacerbate the problem — yet they believe taking the position will buy them some public moral grace. It makes them feel enlightened, even as on a practical level it makes them less able to defend themselves.
Obama and most of the other public leftists who leap on these shootings to begin pushing for gun bans are opportunists of the worst sort. And it happened while the bodies of those dead children were still warm. That they pretend their opportunism is somehow disconnected from their political aspirations is shameful. That they pretend that disarming a population makes it safer — while simultaneously trying to maintain the facade of individual freedom — is despicable. And we shouldn’t even pretend to engage their arguments on some level outside of politics.
My children aren’t your children, Barry, and your children aren’t mine — though unlike mine, yours have a security detail to protect them. Michele is not the dietitian to the collective and you are not its avuncular guardian. Give up your own security detail and we can maybe have a talk about restricting gun ownership.
More, the only thing “we’ve” got to come together on is the idea that, in advance of your willingness to surrender your protection, you and your regulatory henchmen had better not try to stand between me and my ability to protect my family.
There’s a reason gun sales are at an all-time high, and it has nothing to do with millions of people wanting to shoot up an elementary school. “Progressives” — like, eg., your friend Bill Ayers, who once posited that come the new order, 25 million Americans may have to be put in camps or otherwise disposed of — want a helpless and compliant pool to manage, the masses, and it’s a wet dream of theirs to secure not only all political power in their own hands, but all the policing power as well.
Fuck you. Molon Labe.
I second Jeff’s motion.
Do take the time to click here and read the Comment section of Jeff’s post [now approaching 400 entries] — his regulars offer a lot of wisdom and insight.