search
top

Wouldn’t It Be Nice?

Yes, wouldn’t it be nice, if as gun owners, we could just experience grief and sorrow along with the rest of the country. Instead we have that impending feeling of doom over what the media, the politicians, and the people in society who don’t much care for civilian gun ownership, are going to do to our lives, liberty and often times livelihood. What if we could go through something like this, without worrying about how much we’re going to be the scapegoats?

I know that’s the thought that’s been crossing my mind as this entire horror story is playing out in the media. I don’t want to think about, or deal with politics right now. But that’s precisely what I have to start getting ready for if I don’t want to risk that possibility that America, and the politicians who claim to represent her, in their rashest and most impulsive worst instincts, pass a knee jerk law that will overnight turn many Americans into instant felons. There are times I believe we all deserve a break from politics. This is one of them, but we will never get it.

I believe we will not leave this horror unscathed, either mentally or politically. Our liberties and beliefs will be called into question, ridiculed, beaten, and we’ll be told to get in line for the good of everyone. This could very well be the point as which the pendulum swings back. The narrative that’s been driven home is that NRA is beaten up and bloodied, and is no longer relevant. Regardless of whether that’s true or not, what matters is what the powers that be believe. We may not believe the time now is for politics, and it shouldn’t be. But as a variation on an old saying goes: we may not be interested much in politics, but politics is very interested in us.

78 Responses to “Wouldn’t It Be Nice?”

  1. Exurbankevin says:

    What makes us safer? Less prey, or slightly defanged predators?

    Are wildebeest on the veldt more safe if the lions only have four claws per foot instead of five, or are they more safe if they have horns and know how to use them?

    Me, I’d rather have the horns, and God help any lion who sees me as prey.

  2. Harold says:

    the people in society who don’t much care for civilian gun ownership

    You’re much too kind; a lot of them, especially the ones who make a difference, hate us with a passion. Plenty want us dead, and that’s ignoring the consequence of (trying to) disarm the nation.

    Other notes: this happened in Connecticut, a backyard of Boombergs. Also, their shall issue regime is de facto.

    • Sebastian says:

      I’m not necessarily talking about the mouth foamers, like CSGV for example, exclusively. I’m talking about people who are uncomfortable with the idea, but normally aren’t all that motivated to do something about it.

      • Harold says:

        Who are these people and which of them, or groups of them, have power? Especially of the hard, single issue group power we bear?

        • Sebastian says:

          If every person who had discomfort with civilian gun ownership was as fired up as we are, we’d be in for a hell of a fight, and we’d probably lose some ground. The problem is that events like this can motivate people who were not previously motivated.

          • Harold says:

            Coming from you, the political animal (why I follow your blog), that’s entirely inadequate. You’re sounding a might like an Eeyore.

            • Sebastian says:

              I was out over lunch today running some errands, and heard two separate conservations about this issue in two separate places, and both of the people were talking gun control. Neither of them struck me as activists. One of them I’d classify as anti-gun. If the get motivated enough to start talking to their representatives, the issue can change very fast.

              Things are different when kids this young are involved. There are some things that can change the political equation very quickly. And as to sounding like an Eeyore, I actually hope you’re right. I’d like my pessimism here to be shown to be unwarranted.

              • Maria says:

                Was at a pet store and Starbucks and I heard the same conversations. “Why do they let these crazies have guns?” “It’s too easy for crazies to buy guns.”

                And these conversations are never about mental health, our societies treatment of the mentally ill and psychologically troubled, lack of support for young men, over-medication of our children and youth, availability of mental health resources for anyone who needs them (not just those with lots of money/great healthcare plan). Etc etc

                It’s never about these important topics and it’s always about how it’s so easy to get guns. Even when it’s not.

                “Things are different when kids this young are involved.”

                Exactly. Even if you don’t bring up “The Gun Topic” someone else will and then, when you either defend yourself or choose not to engage because it’s not the right time or out of respect, you will be accused of supporting the killing of babies.

                It’s horrific. The whole thing is just so fucking horrific. So many things happening on this planet are that it’s beyond words for me.

  3. Scott says:

    Great post Sebastion.

    Thanks.

  4. Ish says:

    I already have fund-raising emails, plural, from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sitting in my inbox. Heartless Bastards.

    • Braden Lynch says:

      Would any law, regulation, rule, or bureaucratic obstacle proposed by gun control advocates have prevented this?
      Not very likely. So why does the immediate response always have to be that more laws are needed?

      Even if there is one (and not that even outright prohibition does not work), at what cost to our liberty and what about unintended consequences?

      Put the blame on the SOB, not me.

      How about they discuss how another parent, school teacher or administrator on site MIGHT have ended it, but only if they were allowed to be armed? The demand on our legislators should be to end gun free zones to discourage the SOBs from even attempting to do these atrocities.

    • Greg says:

      Wow the blood dancers of CSGV move quickly Don’t want that blood to dry to much before you start dancing in it do you. I;ll bet the last grieving parents had not even found out their child had been murdered by some sick bast#@* before CSGV had a press release out on you political agenda.

      So as evil rears it’s ugly head let’s leave the innocent defenseless so that evil can triumph again and again. The only sane thing to do is strike evil down when ever it threatens the innocent.

  5. ecurb says:

    That does sound pretty self-absorbed, I have to admit.
    Woe is me, your murder might be used against me politically…

    • Divemedic says:

      Except that CBS news, the Brady Campaign, and the President have already begun calling for more gun laws.

    • Bitter says:

      It’s not a completely selfish concern, though. Consider that some of the previous gun bills proposed haven’t included a grandfathering clause. That means that people who own something legally today might become felons should something bad pass. I know my mother has been thinking about getting another firearm, so now my advice to her is going to have to factor in things that could be perfectly fine today, but won’t be in a year. If she didn’t have us around to keep her informed of what many of the gun debates mean in practical terms, she could end up in some trouble if she bought something they later targeted.

      No one here would begin to argue that it compares to what the folks in Connecticut are experiencing at the moment. The post highlights that it would be better if the anti-gun folks didn’t try to use the immediate aftermath of tragedies to push an agenda that could get so many law-abiding Americans into serious trouble because gun owners concerned about their rights would like grieve without the politics as well.

      Even beyond the massacre in the classroom, I know I’m also extremely concerned about the false report the mainstream media has gladly jumped on – posting names and photos of innocent people, sharing personal Facebook pages and Twitter accounts of innocent people, and ruining lives in other ways. Just because those people aren’t dead doesn’t mean that it’s not a reasonable concern, and certainly one that they shouldn’t have to put up with while they also process what happened today. Whether it’s overly eager anti-gunners or asshole reporters who choose not to verify information, these are just folks looking to get in the way of someone else’s time to grieve or process such a horrific event, and that’s a bad thing.

      • ecurb says:

        That’s a good point, and one I hadn’t considered.

        Will you be following the news and posting updates on this? Or do you know a reliable source that doesn’t make things up to get a Breaking Exclusive?
        I don’t have the time, patience, or emotional strength to stay up to date and filter out all the false reporting that’s been going on.

        • Bitter says:

          I am only skimming news about it at this point. I tried to keep up with it, but after seeing what the media has done to completely screw completely innocent people over today, I’ve had about enough of trying to keep up and rewarding their bad behavior.

          In all honesty, I’m likely going to ignore anything that’s not thoroughly verified at this point. I probably won’t try to keep up with details about the specific case for another day or two.

    • alanstorm says:

      ecurb, you are incorrect. If, after incidents like these (which always seem to happen, non-coincidentally, in GUN-FREE zones), there were no calls to disarm all those who didn’t do it, you might have a point.

      however, we’ve seen this movie too much. We already know the plot.

  6. Archer says:

    Agreed. It’s a no-win situation for pro-rights people. Either we mourn and get caught flat-footed against a new law, or we prepare for the new law and get called heartless because we didn’t mourn.

    Once – just once – I’d like someone to shout out where everyone can/will/must see/hear, to let us mourn in peace before trying to politically trample all over us. They don’t want to mourn, because they’d lose the timely opportunity to push their agenda. We want to but don’t get to mourn, because we have to prepare for a legal battle.

    And somehow we’re the heartless ones.

    My thoughts and prayers – and my heart – go out to the victims and their families. May they all find peace and solace.

  7. Anyone want to bet that there isn’t a history of mental illness with the 20 year old who did this and suicided?

    • Andy B. says:

      I was about to say that what little hope we have is, that nothing that can be proposed in the way of gun control would have prevented this tragedy. I include in that the hope that the shooter wasn’t previously diagnosed as mentally ill, though clearly he was. (Think of the growing incentives to try to conceal mental illness, until it is no longer concealable.)

      Even at that, I feel guilty about worrying about the issue while so many people have suffered such losses. I would like to believe there was some way under the sun of preventing things like this from happening. But what I fear is that nothing can really be done, but that won’t stop people from feeling compelled to do something; and therefore whatever is done will be irrational and probably counterproductive.

    • Thomas F says:

      A history of mental illness, pot use with a psychotic break, run ins with the law, and his now deceased mother did not want to have this protesting member of the 99% wanna be the psych help he needed because he was a good boy, just misunderstood….

    • Harold says:

      His brother is reported to have said it was thought he suffered from a personality disorder, and that he was “somewhat autistic”. Current word is that he killed his mother at home, drove her car to her school (where she is a teaching assistant?), and started? with an attack on her class.

      That’s … pretty sick.

      Another perhaps strange thing: 3-4 weapons were recovered, current word is that he left a .223 “assault rifle” in the car and used a Sig and a Glock pistols in the attack.

      I’m also wondering about the timeline, but more will come out on that (or not, depending), i.e. first call for help at 9:30, a radio call, maybe not the first, at 9:45, with the police chief saying they showed up in “minutes”….

      • Patrick H says:

        Interesting he left the .223 in the car, and just used the handguns. Not sure how he got the .223 in the first place because CT banned assault weapons (snicker!)

        • Sebastian says:

          Well, he’s from New Jersey, and a resident of the Garden State. A jurisdiction well known for being friendly to guns and particularly assault weapons.

        • Diane says:

          The guns supposedly belonged to his mother and were all legal.

  8. Robert Walling says:

    The only heartless Bastards and Bitches out here are the Gun Nut fools, and the Corporate Firearms Industry WHORES! of the NRA. and the Political WHORES!, at the local, state and national levels who prostitute themselves on a daily basis for these greedy amoral bloodthirsty vermin! P.S. Don’t give me this lame BULLSHIT!, about not addressing this right now!, due to concern over the families and community. You so-called Second Amendment FREAKS!, don’t give a DAMN!,about them! P.S.S., You can be damn sure that neither Wayne La Pierre, or that draft dodging has been rocker Ted, I only shoot at defenseless animals, not little brown or yellow people who are shooting back at my pasty cowardly ass, Nugent will be on the Ed Schultz show, Jon Stweart, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, or any other venue where they’ll be challenged. No they only be spewing their lying CRAP! on Fox,or some other RightWing CESSPOOL site, wher they’ll be kowtowed to and given free rein to pontificate and LIE!, as is their nature. HOLIDAYS in HELL!,and yes I sincerely despise you and your ilk! With utmost SINCERITY, Robert.

    • Andy B. says:

      Another thing I was about to say is that American society does seem to be increasingly hate-driven, no matter what the issue. People are no longer just wrong; to be wrong they have also to be evil.

      So Robert. thanks for chiming in and making my point. I’ll bet you feel like going out and committing violence, don’t you?

    • Colin says:

      Troll much, Robert?

    • Patrick H says:

      Wow. I don’t even know where I’d start to take that apart.

    • Adam says:

      Ummm is this a joke? I really hope no person would think this makes even the smallest amount of sense.

    • Brad says:

      So Robert. Let us address the gun issue.

      Clearly you represent the Left and anti-gunners. So what do you want? What is the outcome you desire? What public policy stance do you want the government to take?

      For example, back in the 1990’s the Los Angeles Times printed an editorial which advocated a national law which would give American gun owners 30 days to turn over all their semi-automatic rifles to the government and after the 30 day surrender period any possession would be punished as a felony crime.

      Is that what you want Robert? Maybe you want even stronger action. If so, what?

      I really want to know.

      • AGuy says:

        wow.. that was great idea. pity nobody followed through. think now we should include *all* personal firearms.

  9. Ken says:

    I’ll come right out and say it. This was a false flag operation planned and carried out by high level supporters of gun control. I’m not yet sure which group it is, although the quickness of David Frum’s wicked response cause me to suspect that he had prior knowledge.

    • Sebastian says:

      Really? Are you fucking kidding me?

      • Divemedic says:

        I’m willing to listen. After all, how long did many ignore the seemingly crazy sounding plot that was Fast and Furious?

        • Pyrotek85 says:

          It’s crazy sounding, but you do have a point. I still have a hard time believing that one honestly, but maybe I’m just naive.

    • Harold says:

      “The egregious Frum” (to quote Jerry Pournelle) doesn’t need to be a member of an explicit conspiracy to post such drivel (haven’t read it, don’t need to :-).

      We’re facing an “autoconspiracy”, a group of like minded individuals who don’t need special, secret coordination to act somewhat like they are part of one.

      Your use of “false flag” would appear to be incorrect, unless you’re suggesting the shooter was recruited to do this under false pretenses. Given that current reports say his father was found dead and he started by shooting up his mother’s classroom (she’s reported to be dead as well), and his girlfriend is currently missing, I don’t think we need to look in the direction you’re pointing us.

      The autoconspiracy can wait: having done their best to set up victim disarmament zones like schools and opposing institutionalization of the severely mentally ill (not that that would have stopped some of these events), they’ve done all they need to do to assure there will be a tragedy often enough.

  10. David Green says:

    Clayton: I’ve read your book My Brother Ron, which I thought was excellent. I agree with you that the de-institutionalization movement by States has been a disaster. And given that many mass shooters have histories of mental illness, I think that improving mental health services in this country would probably go a long way in decreasing the number of these shootings.

    Problem is: what if someone (like the Virginia Tech shooter, if memory serves), has a history of mental illness but is never institutionalized? Involuntary commitment is a very serious step, and it assumes that someone else recognizes that person’s need for treatment, and is willing to do something about it.

    What if it’s a young person (as it often seems to be), and the family either doesn’t understand that he is mentally ill? Or recognizes that he has a problem but doesn’t do anything about it? I don’t blame the FFL who sells the kid a gun, and who has no idea that this is a person with serious mental illness. How is the FFL supposed to know?

    But then what can be done about a young person who isn’t subject to the (g)(4) disqualifier — who’s never been adjudicated or committed — but who has a serious mental illness? I’m honestly stumped. I’d love to know if you (or other forum members) have any ideas about this.

    • Harold says:

      Errr, I was under the very strong impression that the judge in question made a decision that invoked 18 USC 922 (d)(4) et. al., but the state dropped the ball in both making sure he got the mandated treatment and in reporting the adjudication to the NICS.

      But you’re generally right, the barriers to doing this are so high it almost never happens. The only big, post-establishment of the NICS case I know of is the VT one.

    • Jake says:

      Unfortunately, unless we’re willing to deal with a large number of wrongful involuntary commitments and a system that encourages its abuse, I think the only workable answer is “Shoot back.”

      To quote John Green, whose daughter was killed in another mass shooting, “This shouldn’t happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society, we’re going to be subject to people like this.”

      • Harold says:

        Unfortunately, unless we’re willing to deal with a large number of wrongful involuntary commitments and a system that encourages its abuse….

        Clayton, correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t I remember you saying that when the ACLU was challenged to cite a wrongful involuntary commitment in the ’60s they couldn’t?

        This is all before my time, and I’m sure most of us, so we’d best go by those who remember and/or who have studied the issue, not the infinite propaganda on the subject. And then there’s the true positive of the VT shooter.

    • Jake says:

      Oh, and Harold is correct. The VT shooter should have been reported to NICS, but the judge checked the wrong box on the form. There was some debate about whether the VA statute he made his ruling under required reporting it federally (it did, but the wording was somewhat ambiguous), and that statute was clarified as a result.

      • David Green says:

        Harold, Jake: I stand corrected on the Virginia Tech point. Thank you.

        Jake: I appreciate the suggestion. But there are difficulties with “shoot back.” It assumes that there will be a person in the right position at the right time with the necessary training to defuse the situation. It also assumes that that person can get in a line of fire to shoot the gunman without injuring bystanders.

        Now on the one hand, training could be required. Still, not everyone will choose to carry. Even if (as seems likely) concealed carry will become more culturally acceptable, some people will choose to carry and some won’t. Bottom line is, there are difficulties with the assumptions that someone will be willing and able to shoot back.

        • Patrick H says:

          Of course it assumes the right person will be there. But shouldn’t we allow the opportunity for the right person to be there, instead of denying them that?

          There is also the deterrent effect- where a potential shooter does do it because of armed citizens.

          And there is also the distraction effect- where an armed person distracts the shooter saving lives (maybe at the cost of their own), but allowing the shooter to only focus on the person shooting at him, and allow others to get away as well as stalling until more armed people get there.

        • Diane says:

          Many people choose to carry for personal self defense only.

        • Jake says:

          But there are difficulties with “shoot back.”

          Oh, agreed. I never said it was an ideal solution. It’s just the only workable one I can see.

          Clayton, correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t I remember you saying that when the ACLU was challenged to cite a wrongful involuntary commitment in the ’60s they couldn’t?

          Whether it happened before or not (and whether such events were effectively covered up or not) is irrelevant to me. I don’t trust the people in power – past, (especially) present, or future – with that kind of power.

          One example: I’m gay. There are enough psychologists and legislators that think that fact means that I should be forced to get psychiatric “help” for even a slight change in public opinion to be very concerning to me. It’s been less than 10 years since homosexuality was a felony in my state (and technically, it still is, the state is just barred from enforcing it in any meaningful way), and probably less than 50 years since gays were forced to “voluntarily” submit to treatment as an alternative to prison.

          Think about some of the rhetoric flying about these days. “Conservativism is a mental disease,” and “the TEA party is crazy,” or even “gun owners are paranoid”.

          Now ask yourself: Who decides what qualifies for involuntary commitment? Then realize that, like the enforcement of laws, at some point that power will be wielded by your worst enemies.

    • Maria says:

      I don’t know. I personally have no concrete answers but desperately want people to talk. To actually talk. Because there’s a serious conversation to be had. One that is not being had. And it goes well beyond guns. Maybe it’s a topic that’s touched upon by people at the dinner table (and online “dinner tables”) but it’s definitely not present in the mainstream popular media, or one that’s had by the well paid pundits, the ambulance chasing talking heads, the glorified opinionistas, or the career politicians.

      History shows us that functional long term solutions that stabilize and grow a society are rare and often complex. They all required time, thoughtfulness, finesse, and the willingness to understand multiple positions and groups. They require the balance to assign responsibility and judgment while allowing self determination. They always require long term follow through and dedication.

      Privacy laws, various civil liberties, free speech, right to self, various cultural values, public versus private safety issues, too little versus too much government control, parental and individual responsibility … it all intertwines here. Too many passions.

      Also, too much generated hysteria in the media and by politicians. Too much fear about the threats of random gun violence. A mature conversation is not likely to happen, even now. Maybe especially now.

      At the micro scale, I think that more people should be trained in gun safety and gun use. And I believe that fictional violence shouldn’t be glorified (or at least not be given a PG13 rating when a single bare breast or romantic lesbian kiss gets an R). I do believe that the media, stories, actions, and visuals you consume as a child/youth impact your thoughts/actions as an adult and neurological studies are starting to show that repeated actions/stimulus have impacts on brain and emotional development. Note, I’m not saying that everyone who goes through A becomes B. Correlation is not causation as the often repeated saying goes…

      I know my ramble above doesn’t begin to address preventing those who’ve not been flagged by the system, but who are a danger to others, in getting a gun (or any destructive tool.) But I do think a good portion of the equation lies in managing, preventing, and treating mental illness from a very young age and that these are both private and public matters.

      But how to do such things in a “free” society, assuming we have one? I don’t think it’s entirely possible unless that society is entirely open, and by this I mean everyone knowing everything, or at least having open access to all data and all other people in it through technology.

      I’m not actually advocating such a society but I can’t see anything else that would work. And even then, such a free and open society could not exist in reality due to the default power/powerless structures and relationships that people form. There will likely always be abuses, abusers, and the abused either through the system, through the authorities, or through individuals.

    • Sebastian says:

      My position is pretty simple.

      1. You can’t ban large classes if commonly owned firearms, and AR-15 are among that class.
      2. It requires due process to deprive people of constitutional rights.

      How do you deal with people that have mental health problems and comply with both those base assumptions?

    • It’s a strong argument for making more use of involuntary commitment when a person is clearly mentally ill.

      • Andy B. says:

        You and I would probably agree on what “clearly mentally ill” is, but the fact is, that is very subjective. As Maria pointed out above, there are many people — not totally without cause — who believe that political affiliations may signal mental illness. It is easy to imagine a situation where political affiliation or ideology signals to someone official that an individual is “worth watching,” and that watching leads to a chain of events leading to incarceration or other loss of rights; while someone that you and I would agree is clearly mentally ill goes undetected until they commit a crime.

        As I’m writing this it is reported that the Newtown shooter had a “history of emotional difficulties,” but it will be interesting to see to what level those difficulties were diagnosed and professionally treated, versus being defined by individual or community consensus.

        • Harold says:

          Well, we could start with “psychosis”, per Wikipedia “loss of contact with reality“, and further:

          The term psychosis is very broad and can mean anything from relatively normal aberrant experiences through to the complex and catatonic expressions of schizophrenia and bipolar type 1 disorder. Moreover a wide variety of central nervous system diseases, from both external poisons and internal physiologic illness, can produce symptoms of psychosis.

          The latter examples, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder of the right types, if uncontrolled … well, we used to institutionalize those people. Today an order for that (VT shooter) or “adjudicated mental defective” is required for disbarment. But not even counting definition creep, the latter has been used by the VA since Clinton to inappropriately bar veterans from owning guns and that’s a problem today, e.g. the latest gambit is if a vet assigns control of his financial affairs to someone else (which is certainly a red flag, but not directly related to his being able to responsibly possess firearms, especially given how much difficultly so many have with their financial affairs when they’re healthy…).

          So, no, I don’t see this as a fruitful path. Merely returning to the policy of institutionalization of those who really can’t take care of themselves would be the best first step, it’s the humane thing to do and therefore has broader based support, while also often serving the purpose of establishing a (usually) reported to the NICS disbarment.

      • Alpheus says:

        I think two good requirements for involuntary commitment ought to be:

        First, choose one of (a) A growing tendency to threaten others, and/or resort to violence to settle disputes with others, combined with a creepy fascination with the macabre, and/or (b) an inability to continue to live in your own residence (especially so, if you receive Disability or other means to help with rent and food), and no relatives able to take care of you (especially if you tend to reject help from your relatives);

        Combined with a Second, “you clearly have a disconnect from reality”.

        If we could add a Third, “you also test positive for Schizophrenia or some other mental disorder”, it would be fantastic, but we’d have to actually develop those tests first.

        Finally, I would propose that if you satisfy these two conditions, (a) If you could hold a steady job, and (b) you are not a threat to yourself or others–that is, you do not threaten to harm those around you, for the slightest reasons–(holding out the possibility of resorting to political violence, while it may be unreasonable, should not be considered “insane”, because sometimes it’s reasonable and even justified), then it should be impossible to commit that person. Heck, if you aren’t a threat, and are being taken care of by someone who can hold a steady job, that should be sufficient to bar involuntary commitment!

        • Alpheus says:

          And I would add that these are basic standards, that ought to be difficult to politicise.

  11. Patrick H says:

    Sums up my feelings exactly.

    I’ve already decided to go on the offense and promote teacher and staff carry. Screw it if I’m called heartless and taking advantage. Its neither- its a reaction to others already promoting a “discussion” on gun control.

  12. Jesse says:

    Very well said. It’s a depressing state of affairs of that as sick as this news is I have to be paranoid that I might become a felon in a few days because of it.

  13. Art Hutchinson says:

    Once again as in the Va. Tech shootings families are learning the difference between feeling safe and actuallly being safe. Security at grade schools is ridiculus. My grand children go to a grade school that anyone can just walk in. Feeling chilled. Poor kids have no one to defend them. Teachers are not willing to accept responsibility for defending the kids and become armed. Police cannot be at all the schools all the time. I know that in a time gone past this was not in the job description for teachers but these days the world has gone mad and will only get worse as we decend into the second world depression. Parents will not step up and short stop this behavior in their children. gun control is of no use to stop this.

    • Heather from AK says:

      Speaking as a teacher, I’m totally willing but the state will not allow me.

      • Patrick H says:

        I work in a school too, and I’d carry in a heartbeat.

        • P.M. says:

          Ditto. And it would intensify my commitment to training. (I already train, paying out of pocket, but I would train more.)

  14. David Green says:

    Here’s an article I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/what-can-we-do-to-stop-massacres/266300/

    • Harold says:

      He calls for more gun control, requiring all purchases to go through the NICS, yet admits it’ll do little to nothing:

      many of our country’s recent mass-shooters had no previous criminal records, and had not been previously adjudicated mentally ill

      Can any of you think of exceptions beside the VT shooter, where the state dropped the ball?

      His suggestion that:

      We must find a way to make it more difficult for the non-adjudicated mentally ill to come into possession of weapons. This is crucially important, but very difficult, because it would require the cooperation of the medical community — of psychiatrists, therapists, school counselors and the like….

      Is a non-starter. Not only does the weasel wording betray the idea, the mental health community (his use of the word medical shows his carelessness or ignorance) is very leery of doing things like this that will discourage people from getting treatment. In this case, their ethics and wallets are in alinement.

      Right now the VA and/or military’s overreaction to PTSD, and general eagerness of at least the former to submit NICS disbarments (latest gambit is if you hand your financial affairs off to someone else), is prompting a lot of vets to avoid getting help.

      Bottom line is that he’s still a liberal who believes that we must “Do Something!”; he’s accepted that guns are here to stay, but that’s it.

      • Patrick H says:

        That’s a good point. Gun owners who have mental health issues (could be just drinking) might very well NOT go for help because they could lose their guns. So the people who they want to help will end up not getting the help.

        Unintended consequences.

  15. The Duck says:

    Israel fixed the problem after Ma’alot Massacre they put armed people in every school, our society has spun out of control, and blaming the object will not fix the problem.

    • Will says:

      I seem to remember that Israel made it mandatory that teachers be armed. No gun, no teach. That ended all attempts to shoot schoolkids, except when they went on a roadtrip over a boarder that they couldn’t be armed in. I don’t think they let them go to such places anymore.

      It works for them, it should work here, also.

    • Diane says:

      If I recall correctly, Israel actually has pretty stringent gun control. http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/07/24/3101546/despite-militarized-society-israels-strict-gun-laws-keep-civilian-violence-down

      “Unlike in the United States, where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, Israel’s department of public security considers gun ownership a privilege, not a right. Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year.”

  16. RAH says:

    From a military viewpoint there is little to do to prevent a surprise attack, unless you fortify.

    In this case the assailant was a a known son of a teacher that worked there and was buzzed in by the principal , The shooter killed the principal. Apparently the adults that were killed were in the office so the security protocals worked in that the person was in the office. He just shot them. It was a surprise to the the office workers. Once they were killed the children were defenceless.

    What defences were there were infiltrated because the shooter was known and trusted.

  17. RAH says:

    As a society we do not choose to fortify schools or allow the adults to be armed.

    Really there is little to do to prevent this situation.

    However one person said this is good argument to home school.

    I was struck that this school was so large with 600- 700 students and that was only kindergarten to 4 th grade.

    • Harold says:

      The world will not look kindly on people who put their kids into public school.Penelope Trunk.

      You put your children in the hands of your enemies and you’re surprised with the results?” rough quote from memory of He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named.

      With the way public schools are today, I have little sympathy for the parents of these children. Sure, this is the absolute worst case, but statistically it’s entirely predictable. Many of you will remember the 1989 Stockton schoolyard shooting which fell on gun grabber pre-prepared ground and prompted the assault rifle import ban of G. H. W. Bush which we’re still living with, and all the “assault weapons” bans, of which only the Federal one sunsetted. And of course Columbine.

      One of the bottom lines of this, as others are discussing, is that the public schools, despite the proven threat, are entirely unserious about dealing with it; a minimal passive, physical crust defense which can be defeated guile or simply shooting out a window as one report has it this morning is no defense at all. The culture of these people is simply not up to the task, and without a terrible in your face threat like the Israelis have I don’t see that changing.

    • Harold says:

      As long as I’m whining, let me add to the thesis of why “society” or whomever doesn’t take this threat seriously enough with this MSM gem of Doublespeak: ROUTINE MORNING, THEN SHOTS AND UNTHINKABLE TERROR, which includes the sentence “And then, suddenly and unfathomably, gunshots rang out.

      Insert the standard quote from Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride, or perhaps “Ignorance is Strength” from 1984.

  18. Richard says:

    Perimeter defenses have their place but perimeters can be breached by force or guile as this one was. Once that happens there needs to be a Plan B. School employees-teachers, custodians, administrators- have repeatedly demonstrated their courage and resourcefulness in dealing with these terrible situations. Only one school shooting has been stopped by a police officer (who was off duty and present as a parent) while many have been stopped or mitigated by school employees simply because the employees were there and the police weren’t. It is time to give the employees more to work with. Train them and arm them. Many will step up.

  19. Harold says:

    One thing I wonder about is when did it become SOP to “round up the usual suspects” by arresting the surviving family members, even if they’re in another state and by definition couldn’t have been immediately directly involved? This happened to the shooter’s brother (and no, finding some of his ID at the site doesn’t excuse it) and his father barely missed this by the tactically armored police timing out (no reason for them to be armored up if it’s for routine questioning).

    I don’t know about you, but for essentially futile and pointless “Why did your relative, who you’ve not seen for a couple of years, kill these people and then himself?” questioning, if I was handled in such a brutal manner I would do the recommended anyway “No answers until I retain council”; as so many point out, absolutely nothing good can come from talking to them. In this case they’re looking for trouble, best not to give them anything to latch onto, especially with the FBI’s unexplained role and the consequences of a Federal agent saying you lied to them.

    • Andy B. says:

      “One thing I wonder about is when did it become SOP to “round up the usual suspects” by arresting the surviving family members. . .”

      Always has been, always will be, depending on what the crime is and who the victim is, and how high-profile a case it is.

      Among my Old Stories is one about how the brother of one of my dad’s best buddies committed a federal crime back in the early ’50s, and the feds harassed his brother, my dad’s buddy, until he became psychotic. He was then thrown into a mental institution (key some classical Russian music here) where he was killed with electo-shock therapy. The only thing he was guilty of was having loaned his brother a few bucks.

      Along the way, to make a show of things, when they first arrested him they also lined up all of the neighbors against a wall and held them there with Thompsons, while they waited for him to come home from work. Oh, and later they drugged him, before he went nuts and was imprisoned and killed.

      When these sorts of things were first (?) done to gun owners back in the ’90s, and everyone was acting like it was something new in America’s decline, traceable to Bill and Hillary, I just had to chuckle.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Quote of the Day - Oleg Volk(12/14/2012) - The Minuteman - [...] post from Sebastian also rang and a worthy QotD:  As gun owners, if we could just experience the grief …
  2. We’re the Hateful Ones? | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] apparently at least one person posting from a public library in Seattle has room for plenty of hate in …
  3. Sandy Hook, Port Arthur, Columbine, and Luby’s « The Patriot Perspective - [...] Update 3: Sebastian at PAGunBlog sums up the feelings of most rights supporters. [...]
  4. Derek Ward | Thoughts on Sandy Hook - [...] Like most people I read in horror as the first reports came in about the tragedy at Sandy Hook. …
top