Neal Boortz has a post on Virginia Tech and Gun Control today that fills in some important gaps left out by the MSM:
This is undoubtedly the worst school shooting, high school, college or otherwise, in the history of our country. There are some facts, however, about some of these school shootings of which you probably are not aware. Do you know, for instance, that at least three shootings in high schools were stopped by civilians with guns? Civilians, not law enforcement. In one case a civilian was traveling past a school when he saw children running from the building. One told him that there was a student inside shooting people. The civilian pulled his gun, ran in side, and confronted the student. The student put down the gun and surrendered. In another case a high school vice-principal heard that there was a student in the hallways with a gun. He sprinted a half-mile to his car. He had a gun in his car so he had to park off campus. He then sprinted back with the gun to confront the student. Lives saved.
There have been many other cases where civilians with guns have prevented further carnage at the hands of killers. The media isn't fond of reporting these episodes because they don't contribute to the cause of gun control.
The point here is that you are never ever going to get the guns out of the hands of those who want to use them for carnage. Never. In all the years of press releases and statements from the Brady anti-gun organization there has never been one single gun control plan presented that would take the guns out of the hands of criminals. This is the oddity of gun control. Only law abiding people are going to abide by gun control laws. Criminals are not. The anti-gun lobby, and that includes much of the media, will never give any fair coverage at all to the people who use guns to save their own lives, or the lives of others.
(bold emphasis mine) When the MSM reports stories about citizens stopping criminals with guns, they often report that the gunman was "overpowered" or "restrained" by citizens - without mentioning those citizens had used guns.
People want more gun control laws thinking it's going to make them safe. But such laws can't and don't keep guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS.
Tammy Bruce, in chapter 5 of her book "The New American Revolution", examines gun control arguments in depth. Many of the arguments for gun control claim to be based on increasing the law-abiding publics survival odds against a maniac. Tammy said about that:
[...] This in and of itself acknowledges that not only do gun laws not keep the innocent safe, they do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Let's get real here - the only thing that would increase the survival odds for the law-abiding public is if they were able to shoot back at any maniac shooting at them. [...]
(bold emphasis mine) We saw a demonstration of that principle in action yesterday. If even only one of those citizens had been armed, dozens of people might still be alive today.
Murdering maniacs aren't exactly interested in being law-abiding, any more than criminals are. Removing OUR ability to protect ourselves does not make US safer.
Pat and I were talking about this at breakfast this morning, you can read more about his thoughts on the matter, which are much like my own, here: The massacre
the edge by powerful antidepressant drugs?
Also not being mentioned enough by the media, is that in all the school shootings we hear about, the shooters had been on anti-depressant drugs, including the shooter yesterday. Our citizens have had guns for the past 200 years. It's only in more modern times that school shootings have become increasingly common. And a common factor in those shootings and other other mass shootings is antidepressant drugs. Does anyone think that is a mere coincidence? Instead of banning guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, shouldn't we be looking at the rampant prescribing of dangerous psychiatric drugs?
Related Links:
Breaking News updates at Hot Air
Why You Should Own a Gun
Prescription drugs are connected to school shootings and other violence, yet more drugs are touted as the solution
3 comments:
You are a breath of fresh air. Someone with a brain!
I don't want to rush to judgment on what was to blame but it does appear that drugs may have been partially responsible for some of these shootings in the past.
As for gun control, just ask Sammy the bull what he thought about it, he loved it. When things settle down from this tragedy I think I will do a comprehensive post on the myths on gun-control. I'll probably come to you for resources since you seem to have some good ones here.
JM,
Thanks!
LMC,
I read in an article that Cho was on antidepressants, but they didn't give any details.
It seems like every school shooting case I've read about involved some sort of antidepressant; zoloft, paxil, prozac... there may be cases that didn't have antidepressants, but I haven't read about them.
I do realize it may not explain everything, but it's too big a common factor to not follow up on. Some journalists have actually been practicing journalism and doing stories about it, but the MSM never goes very far with it. Perhaps they want to keep it focused exclusively as a gun control issue.
Post a Comment