...shameless opportunism before the blood's even dry:
All of them convinced that if Obama can just somehow seize the moment and overturn the 2nd Amendment, everything will be sunshine and kittens.
What's that? China? Oh.
Also, the continued infiltration of the justice system, bah humbug, please save the Earth and irrefutable evidence that, at heart, their desire to control the language knows no bounds.
The thing that worries me is that, at least here. the killings were not only easily preventable but foreseen.
Both Hungerford and Dunblane were presaged by reports and even demands by local people and beat coppers that the individuals were a danger. The reaction? The chief constables over-ruled everybody and allowed them to keep (and even forced the return of in one case) the firearms used in each subsequent murder.
Then a supposed knee-jerk reaction of legislation which appears fully formed, as if written beforehand. The chief constables who made major errors? Promoted of course.
In the States, as I've said before, they continue to ban guns from the areas that are always targeted. Why? (My sympathies for the bereaved but I wish one of the victims had been armed and could have stopped it 'dead')
Also amazing how they always appear just at the right time to knock some inconvenient news off the front page isn't it?
I shall now remove my tin-foil beanie and return to normal transmission.
The woman whose comment about the Dunblane massacre you put up should be invited to tell us what has happened to gun crime in the UK since then.
Connecticut has, amongst others, the following restrictions of the ownership of guns:
Has not been convicted as a delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense;
Has not been discharged from custody within the preceding twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect;
Is not subject to a restraining or protective order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person;
Is not subject to a firearms seizure order issued for posing a risk of personal injury to self or others after a hearing; or
Is not prohibited from possessing a firearm for having been adjudicated as a mentally incompetent under federal law.
There is also the following legal proviso in the Firearms Licensing law in Connecticut:
Connecticut statutes contain provision that allow law enforcement officials to pre-emptively seize a person's firearms without a warrant or court order, when they have probable cause that the person may either be mentally unstable or intends to use the weapons to commit a crime.
Further legislation is not going to be of any assistance whatsoever in trying to stop crimes such as happened in Newtown.
If, however, any of the very many members of staff at the school had been armed and trained then I am convinced that the enormity of this crime would have been very much reduced.
"When seconds count the Police are only minutes away!"
Here's someone else's take on the shooting and the aftermath.
The picture is titled "Why you don't see school shootings in Israel."
Good link to the picture of Israeli schoolchildren and protector (teacher, presumably?).
In terms of firepower a concealed-carry personal defence .380 would be seriously out-gunned against a Bushmaster rifle, 9mm, and a warload of ammo. And reports state this intruder wore a protective vest.
However, even shots from a personal .380 might have been useful to delay an intruder long enough to put the school in full lockdown before he had gained entry. Preventing access being the first step, fightback the final option only after access cannot be prevented.
A staff member intending to guard the school premises and protect those inside, as you say, needs to be properly armed and trained against what now seems is an expected level of threat, however rarely it hits. The teachers are almost certainly there when the kids are, but the armed police will be miles/minutes away.
Good picture, but don't expect the MSM to show this option however rational or effective it is.
Strangely the MSM seem to be unaware that very few spree-shooters head to places where people have guns with which to defend themselves!
A partial post of mine may have been submitted accidentally early (or it may have just been wiped away) due to my keyboard/finger/juggling issues (too, too much going on around me).
Feel free to delete, cut, edit or jeer at.
Anonymous at 15 December 2012 19:18
Here's what happened to gun crime in the years after Dunblane. Basically, in the ten-year period of 1999 to 2008 gun crime in Britain went up 89%.
"Both Hungerford and Dunblane were presaged by reports and even demands by local people and beat coppers that the individuals were a danger. "
So vary, very rarely do we hear the statements from neighbours you get in serial killings: "Nice man, helped out at the local church, quiet and unassuming..."
"If, however, any of the very many members of staff at the school had been armed and trained then I am convinced that the enormity of this crime would have been very much reduced."
Maybe. Any suggestion of this brings jeers from the gun-control nuts that 'You think the children should be armed!'.
"Strangely the MSM seem to be unaware that very few spree-shooters head to places where people have guns with which to defend themselves!"
They might be mad (by any clinical definition) but clearly, they aren't stupid!
Silly comparison as its pretty Hard to stab someone 600 times a minute !
Post a Comment