Good Guns can Kill Bad People

| December 15, 2012

The liberals hadn’t let the blood dry on the classroom floor in Newton, CT before they were using the deaths of all those children to leverage their cause of gun control. Had conservative broadcasters done such a thing they’d be roundly denounced as soulless ghouls and rightly so. When I first read online of the killings, I just shook my head in sadness then immediately steeled myself for what I knew was coming from the hysterical lefties. They did not disappoint although I must confess to a certain despair that Mayor Bloomberg has become such a predictable old scold. Can we not somehow sue this turkey for calling himself a Republican?

Another horrific mass murder and if we could not predict its timing we could predict its site within certain parameters. With predictable regularity, the most lethal of these types of attacks take place in public venues such as shopping malls, restaurants, theaters, with the deadliest frequently being institutions of learning. We are all familiar with the Columbine high school killings in which 12 students and a single teacher died or the Virginia Tech massacre where 32 people died. Fewer remember the 2006 killing of five Amish schoolgirls by a milk truck driver or the Jonesboro, AR school shooting in which five died, gunned down by fellow students. How many remember the memorable name of Kip Kinkel, an Oregon high school student who murdered his parents and two students in 1998? Or what about that Red Lake, MN mass killing where nine died in 2005? Of course all of you remember the recent Aurora, CO theater shooting but what about the 2007 Arvada, CO school shooting that left five dead?

The point I’m attempting to make here is that these tragedies recur with an irregular chronological predictability but with an altogether predictable targeted area, school campuses, be they elementary as with this latest tragedy, or high school as at Columbine, or university as with Virginia Tech. Other than their educational bond, they all share another commonality, the one which most likely leads to their selection by the perpetrators as the scenes for their slaughters: they are all sites where the presence of firearms is strictly prohibited and enforced with zero tolerance. There is no one to shoot back and thus deter the shooter from his maddened mission. Think about it, most of these mass shootings end with the suicide of the killer after he has accomplished his goal. Few are ever killed by authorities or captured.

These killers control the events because they have picked the setting where that is most easily accomplished, where they can inflict the most pain and death in a very brief period of time before an armed response can be mounted. We hear them called cowards for killing the helpless. I believe they are more viciously cunning than cowardly, picking a target so vulnerable as to permit them to accomplish their goal of creating as much mayhem and death as possible in the shortest period of time.

It’s a cliché to say there’s never been one of these mass shootings at a gun show, but it’s a cliché birthed in truth. How about at a shooting range where a madman could walk in fully armed with total impunity, unquestioned, with multiple lethal weapons and begin firing? His entrée would be easy. Problem is, so would his predictably rapid departure. How about gun shops or sporting goods stores where guns and ammunition are sold and in plentiful supply, filled with shoppers who have a much likelier chance of carrying concealed, unlike a mall theater or food court? Ask yourselves, when was the last mass shooting at a rodeo or a NASCAR race?

Ponder that for a while, those of you liberals who equate the presence and availability of guns with criminal shootings. The truth operates in the obverse: it is precisely where there are the most guns and people who know how to use them where the massacres do not occur. And it is precisely where guns are not present where these slaughters do take place. That is no accident; rather it is a demonstration of the awareness of mass killers as to where it will be most expedient for them to attack, where they will have the most time to conduct their slaughter.

Some may try to prove me wrong by pointing out the Fort Hood shooting but that argument is easily refuted. That horrible event, once again, was carefully planned to be carried out in the general midst of a heavily armed military force in a precise location within that force where it was least likely that any armed soldiers would be present to intervene: the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, a medical processing facility. Like all these other shooters, the cowardly physician who forsook his medical oath knew quite well he was targeting one of the least-protected sites on that huge base.

Those who are so angry, frustrated and fed up with the futility of their lives that they have no desire to continue living have multiple ways of dealing with their problems. Fortunately, most finally accept that they must have external help and seek it, continuing to live. Others refuse that option and take their lives themselves. A few, perhaps more angry than most, go out in in flash of angry defiance, what we call death by cop. Tragically, we always have the few whose warped reasoning and boiling anger leads them to believe they must go out of this world on a stream of innocent blood from a place where the very lack of guns guarantees the fulfillment of their horrific madness.

If you liberals want to assign morality to firearms, consider: As any combat infantryman, and I am one, can tell you, guns don’t kill people; good people with good guns do kill bad people. Unfortunately, bad people with bad guns kill good people unless they are stopped by those good people with good guns. When defensive guns are known to be in the target area, such as schools, the massacre-minded madman will have second thoughts about his target selection, perhaps sending him to a gun range or a gun show to perpetrate his madness.

We can only hope…

Edited version crossposted at American Thinker

Category: Guns, Liberals suck

Comments (15)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. MAJMike says:

    Will thise horrific incident be labeled “workplace violence” like the bloody-handed murder at Ft. Hood? Murder is murder.

    The “blood-dancer” Lib-Cong couldn’t wait to call for the punishment of people not associated with this murderous rampage. I, like John, have gone to the shooting range dressed in clothing designed to facilitate shooting. I, too, have taken a sizable collection of deadly firearms and a plenitude of ammunition with me. All this was accomplished without incident. Yet, the Lib-Cong seek to punish me.

    Go figure.

  2. C.D. says:

    Well said.

  3. Al T. says:

    Liberals argue with emotion, not facts or common sense. Add the mass movement of mentally ill folks NOT being treated or restrained and helpless victims being pre-positioned in gun-free zones and you get horror.

  4. Cacti35 says:

    I have been following a debate over gun control on another website. This by far is the most common sense thing I have read. Well done!

  5. Spade says:

    The good guy incidents just aren’t publicized. I assume this is intentional.

  6. BooRadley says:

    Excellent point, finely stated. I wish more would read this

  7. streetsweeper says:

    Very well written, troop! Hooah. Joe should be weighing in, in about….?

  8. DaveO says:

    Poetrooper – did you intentionally undermine your message in your last paragraph?

    Guns are neither good nor bad. Like baseballs bats, union thugs, and automobiles, guns are just tools that lack inherent morality.

    Good people with guns kill bad people. Bad people with guns kill children, because children don’t carry.

  9. Poetrooper says:

    @8 Dave, if you’re going to win with liberals you have to play to their emotions because reason simply does not work. Therefore I will concede to them that any weapon in the hands of a bad person with bad intentions can be characterized as a bad weapon be it gun, knife, grenade.

    Of course I do not accept the liberal belief that guns are inherently evil. That is patent emotional liberal nonsense; but I will accept that any weapon is as good or bad as the person who wields it. We did not consider the atomic bomb in the control of Harry Truman to be a bad weapon; but what if it had been in Adolph Hitler’s hands during the Battle of Britain.

    Ponder that important distinction.

  10. AW1 Tim says:

    Well said, and thank you for that.

    If you equate liberalism/leftism with mental disorder, then it become abundantly clear why they attack the weapon and not the shooter. To blame the shooter would be to equate themselves with him and they just cannot face the fact that they themselves are mentally deficient.

  11. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    While the libs are going out of their minds presently, wanting a 2nd amendment repeal, I have yet to see anyone talk about the school system and its failure to protect the children. The modern school system has largely assumed the role of parent. It feeds kids, teaches them what the system determines they need to know, shapes their views about matters, entertains them, disciplines them, and coddles them. What the system is not doing is protecting them. Perhaps in the coming days, attention will be trained on this fundamental issue. I’ll not hold my breath, however.

  12. DaveO says:

    #9 Poetrooper: no pondering needed. We took the toys from the Battle of Britain and use them: bombers, rockets and missiles, radar, parachutes, and so on. Not an argument.

    I am thinking that AW1 Tim is on to something: given the hysteria and paranoia of the Prognazis from 2000-2012, where there where evil conspiracies of Conservatives, Republicans, whites, and the rich were the stuff of most news reports, movies, TV shows, blog sites/posts — and consider that academics pushed that crap on students regardless of age and maturity — I really do believe the Left attracts and uses the mentally ill in the same manner as AQ uses the mentally ill for suicide bombers.

    Considering the victims haven’t reached room temperature before the first calls come out to erase the rights of hundreds of millions of innocent American citizens, it’s a wonder…

  13. UpNorth says:

    I’d like to hear and see you read that testimony into the record of the Congressional committees when they inevitably have their hearings and summon the gun control equivalents of Sandra Fluke to spout their BS on gun control.
    I do believe we can count on Bloomie to show up to get stroked by Feinstein, while Schumer nods approvingly. Then they’ll all leave for drinks, protected by their armed security details.

  14. USMCE8Ret says:

    You offer an interesting observation, Jonn – particularly about how offenders will select a place they know (or determine) won’t be defended.

    Such as the litigation after the San Ysidro, CA shooting by James Huberty. THe families of the deceased victims and survivors tried to sue the McDonald’s Corporation which was brought before the San Diego Superior Court.

    The court ultimately dismissed before trial on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, but the plaintiffs appealed. Later, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment for the defendants. In the court’s view, it found:
    (1) McDonald’s or any other business has no duty of care to protect patrons from an unforeseeable assault by a murderous madman; and (2) plaintiffs could not prove causation because the standard reasonable measures normally used by restaurants to deter criminals, like guards and closed-circuit television cameras, could not possibly have deterred the perpetrator (who did not care about his own survival).

  15. DaveO says:

    On a whim, did a Google search for ‘shooting massacre’ and holy crap! There are 562 million results (at two tenths of a second). The tragedy in Connecticut is at the top, but there are so many more.

    Google is going to have to modify its filters: many pages detail shooting massacres in Europe and other places that are not the US of A. Places that have extremely thorough gun control laws.

    If one adds in other tools for killing, the aggregate points to one common factor: men with nothing and nowhere to go.

    Maybe Bloomie will call for a ban on men. It’s not like he’ll ever be confused for a man.