Same Mistake, Another Tragic Day...
I join the people of our nation in sadly mourning the senseless loss of all the innocent murder victims, the remaining bereaved family members and friends and the police officers who tried in earnest to get there in time, but as so frequently happens, did not. It is senseless due to its' random, cold nature and the fact that the liklihood of this recurring remains a very real and certain prospect.
I get even more sad to see the usual aftermath of stupid statements and musings over the "shock" that this could happen and the bemoaning of a mindless search for "safety". The press now takes the ever repeated stance of interviewing the witnesses and students/faculty members and stating again and again the "disbelief", the futile questions of "why" and the always rejuvenated cries for further disarming of legal, law-abiding members of the public who should have the most basic right of self defense as their option.
The police do their level best to stop mindless acts of killing, yet they cannot see into the warped mind of someone who is on a determined march to death, hellbent on taking others with them first. The police are human and cannot be the all encompassing security force that society fully expects them to be, at all places, times and situations. It is a very unfair charge of duty placed upon our law enforcement community.
As with the War on Terror, there is no "Easy Button" that would allow our citizenry to ignore their own duty to take their own security and stability seriously. The liberal mindset is to always assign this duty to those around them.
"Where were the police? Where was the Government? Don't we have the "right" to be "safe" in public???"
The police were there, doing the best they could do given what they knew. Stop and try to conceive of the sense of letdown and failing those officers are living today. Not ONE amongst them would have allowed one innocent death to occur had they had the power to have been there in time.
The Government has passed laws that preclude the otherwise defenseless citizen from having the option of taking steps to provide themselves and those immediately around them with some form of significant recourse. But that Government did that with the public's vote and that of the public's elected Congressional representatives. You and me... (OK, not me... but far too many.)
And NO... we don't have any perceived RIGHT to be "safe" in public. We never did have, it is pure fantasy and there is NO SUCH THING AS TRULY SAFE!!!
Evil exists. Evil is REAL. And evil is cold and uncaring. Contrary to what is fashionable and progressively liberal, evil will win again and again, hands down, until that time in which we finally stand up and say "Stop".
We must say and do! "I will take responsibility for my own security. I will recognize that crazy, unrepentent, lunatics exist and they may well try to harm me, my family or my fellow law abiding citizen. I will learn to take the steps that I can to fight back and avoid positively and surely being a helpless, scurrying, hunted victim."
The real question that should be asked is, "How many more times must we see this before we act to actually curb it?"
Apparently, many more tears must first fall before we collectively face reality.
*UPDATE*
I feel that an individual commenter at Sunflower Desert has promptly asked most of what I alluded to above and perfectly illustrates the points I was trying to make. I reprint below my answers to each of his individual statements:
Defiant_Infidel said,
April 17, 2007 at 10:24 am
Matt, you and those who think(?) like you are at the very heart of this problem we have in our schools and other public facilities.
"i’d still feel much safer is there were no guns on campus at all."
Spiffy and progressive thought… so where’s the beef? How did you plan on insuring that no guns enter the campus? When someone decides to do such an abhorrent act, they will do it, whether it means shooting their way through the metal detectors and those attending them or otherwise. Your not even remotely realistic.
"besides, even if several people had a gun in the hall this morning how much good do you think they would have been able to do?"
People with firearms training are educated to be aware, alert, prepared and calm in the face of a threat. If “several people” had been armed, the liklihood that one of them would have been able to return fire and stop this idiot would have been a helluva lot greater than the alternative reality of a classroom full of unarmed victims, ripe for the killing. Additionally, if it was publicly known that students and teachers both had the right to be armed and therefore COULD BE, it might well have given pause for thought to the would be perpetrator. Scum like this go where they will have no threat of return fire… he didn’t go into the police station or the local shooting range and start attempting to kill people, did he? How many times do people like you have to see this miserable piece of history repeated before it actually gets through your stone cranium???
"There was already so much confusion how were students to know who was the malicious gunner and who was the ‘good guy’?"
Ummm…. I would bet that the other students could tell who the good guys were when they took note of the fact that they were one second studying in class and the next all trying to stop the one guy that was indiscriminately killing all those around him. Boy, that was a tough question to consider…
"How would police know when they arrived on the scene?"
Ummmm… that would have been easily discerned by the fact that the shooter in question was dead, by someone else who was armed and capable and with a whole lot less dead victims laying around first, rather than after the police showed up (as so frequently is the case) and after the gunman thankfully decided he was done and turned the gun on himself.
"I think that your romantic vision of gun slingin’ heroes saving the day is a little naive."
How quaint… the rest of us here seem to agree that your view is prevalent. ludicrous and indirectly(?) responsible for the “shoot fish in a barrel” scenario that exists in each and every one of our classrooms across the country yesterday, today and, until we change things… tomorrow.
I find it such an exercise in futility and pointlessness to sit around every time, after one of these unnecessary random acts of murder, and interview witnesses to ask about their “feelings” over the incident. Remarkably, that is the chief focus. Inane questions like “How could this happen?” and statements like how “unbelievable” it all is permeate the airwaves. That and more liberal gibberish about how we will all be “safer” when we are completely unarmed universally… except for the law ignoring criminal perpetrators, of course. They also are big fans of restricted citizen rights to defend themselves… Afterall, who wants to be a criminal in a capable, armed and potentially defensive general public?
*UPDATE #2*
The antidote... rejected.
*UPDATE #3*
It doesn't have to be like this... Here's another same day example of an attempted attack that turned out quite differently:
*UPDATE #4*
Even in the country with the world's strictest gun control, it just doesn't work.
I get even more sad to see the usual aftermath of stupid statements and musings over the "shock" that this could happen and the bemoaning of a mindless search for "safety". The press now takes the ever repeated stance of interviewing the witnesses and students/faculty members and stating again and again the "disbelief", the futile questions of "why" and the always rejuvenated cries for further disarming of legal, law-abiding members of the public who should have the most basic right of self defense as their option.
The police do their level best to stop mindless acts of killing, yet they cannot see into the warped mind of someone who is on a determined march to death, hellbent on taking others with them first. The police are human and cannot be the all encompassing security force that society fully expects them to be, at all places, times and situations. It is a very unfair charge of duty placed upon our law enforcement community.
As with the War on Terror, there is no "Easy Button" that would allow our citizenry to ignore their own duty to take their own security and stability seriously. The liberal mindset is to always assign this duty to those around them.
"Where were the police? Where was the Government? Don't we have the "right" to be "safe" in public???"
The police were there, doing the best they could do given what they knew. Stop and try to conceive of the sense of letdown and failing those officers are living today. Not ONE amongst them would have allowed one innocent death to occur had they had the power to have been there in time.
The Government has passed laws that preclude the otherwise defenseless citizen from having the option of taking steps to provide themselves and those immediately around them with some form of significant recourse. But that Government did that with the public's vote and that of the public's elected Congressional representatives. You and me... (OK, not me... but far too many.)
And NO... we don't have any perceived RIGHT to be "safe" in public. We never did have, it is pure fantasy and there is NO SUCH THING AS TRULY SAFE!!!
Evil exists. Evil is REAL. And evil is cold and uncaring. Contrary to what is fashionable and progressively liberal, evil will win again and again, hands down, until that time in which we finally stand up and say "Stop".
We must say and do! "I will take responsibility for my own security. I will recognize that crazy, unrepentent, lunatics exist and they may well try to harm me, my family or my fellow law abiding citizen. I will learn to take the steps that I can to fight back and avoid positively and surely being a helpless, scurrying, hunted victim."
The real question that should be asked is, "How many more times must we see this before we act to actually curb it?"
Apparently, many more tears must first fall before we collectively face reality.
*UPDATE*
I feel that an individual commenter at Sunflower Desert has promptly asked most of what I alluded to above and perfectly illustrates the points I was trying to make. I reprint below my answers to each of his individual statements:
Defiant_Infidel said,
April 17, 2007 at 10:24 am
Matt, you and those who think(?) like you are at the very heart of this problem we have in our schools and other public facilities.
"i’d still feel much safer is there were no guns on campus at all."
Spiffy and progressive thought… so where’s the beef? How did you plan on insuring that no guns enter the campus? When someone decides to do such an abhorrent act, they will do it, whether it means shooting their way through the metal detectors and those attending them or otherwise. Your not even remotely realistic.
"besides, even if several people had a gun in the hall this morning how much good do you think they would have been able to do?"
People with firearms training are educated to be aware, alert, prepared and calm in the face of a threat. If “several people” had been armed, the liklihood that one of them would have been able to return fire and stop this idiot would have been a helluva lot greater than the alternative reality of a classroom full of unarmed victims, ripe for the killing. Additionally, if it was publicly known that students and teachers both had the right to be armed and therefore COULD BE, it might well have given pause for thought to the would be perpetrator. Scum like this go where they will have no threat of return fire… he didn’t go into the police station or the local shooting range and start attempting to kill people, did he? How many times do people like you have to see this miserable piece of history repeated before it actually gets through your stone cranium???
"There was already so much confusion how were students to know who was the malicious gunner and who was the ‘good guy’?"
Ummm…. I would bet that the other students could tell who the good guys were when they took note of the fact that they were one second studying in class and the next all trying to stop the one guy that was indiscriminately killing all those around him. Boy, that was a tough question to consider…
"How would police know when they arrived on the scene?"
Ummmm… that would have been easily discerned by the fact that the shooter in question was dead, by someone else who was armed and capable and with a whole lot less dead victims laying around first, rather than after the police showed up (as so frequently is the case) and after the gunman thankfully decided he was done and turned the gun on himself.
"I think that your romantic vision of gun slingin’ heroes saving the day is a little naive."
How quaint… the rest of us here seem to agree that your view is prevalent. ludicrous and indirectly(?) responsible for the “shoot fish in a barrel” scenario that exists in each and every one of our classrooms across the country yesterday, today and, until we change things… tomorrow.
I find it such an exercise in futility and pointlessness to sit around every time, after one of these unnecessary random acts of murder, and interview witnesses to ask about their “feelings” over the incident. Remarkably, that is the chief focus. Inane questions like “How could this happen?” and statements like how “unbelievable” it all is permeate the airwaves. That and more liberal gibberish about how we will all be “safer” when we are completely unarmed universally… except for the law ignoring criminal perpetrators, of course. They also are big fans of restricted citizen rights to defend themselves… Afterall, who wants to be a criminal in a capable, armed and potentially defensive general public?
*UPDATE #2*
The antidote... rejected.
*UPDATE #3*
It doesn't have to be like this... Here's another same day example of an attempted attack that turned out quite differently:
A man found dead in a Pascagoula apartment early Saturday morning may have been killed in self defense.
Van "Buddy" Bardwell, 42, was found dead in the kitchen of Lowell Richard Semans' apartment at 4508 Lanier Avenue. Bardwell was clutching a hatchet, according to a press release from the Pascagoula Police Department.
According to the press release, Semans warned Bardwell not to enter his home, but Bardwell charged Semans, who shot him once with a .38 caliber handgun. No charges have been filed.
The press release also said Semans and Bardwell had a confrontation Friday evening, but Jonathan Randall and Danielle Roberts, who live in the apartment next to Semans, said they thought the two men were friends.
*UPDATE #4*
Even in the country with the world's strictest gun control, it just doesn't work.
Labels: 2nd Amendment and Self Defense
posted by defiant_infidel at 4/17/2007 08:31:00 AM
<< Home