During the last few years Scotland has had the misfortune to have been the site of two outrageous acts of mass murder: one at Lockerbie, and one at Dunblane. By my observation few if any were listening to the lesson of Lockerbie (the US government continues to throw its weight around the world, daring its enemies to wreak vengeance) and, alas, the same seems to have been true of Dunblane's.
There, a man in his 40s got hold of four handguns in a country where almost nobody except government agents is allowed to carry handguns, walked in to an elementary school and systematically shot to death 15 young children and their teacher, and then himself.
I can think of no way to ensure that nobody in society will ever go berserk and start to do such a terrible thing. But I can think of a very obvious way to prevent him getting very far with his rampage, and that way stands directly opposed to Conventional Wisdom; the reason that many of those young victims died is that anti-gun laws prevented enyone defending themselves except cops, too far away to help, and except the one who cared nothing for the lives of himself or anyone else. Anti-gun laws literally disarm the victim!
As sadly usual after any gun-death tragedy, the lobbyists who are so very eager to impose a Hitler-style gun prohibition here have used the Dunblane slaughter to enhance their endless calls for more laws. These people are never rational, but after that, they were even more illogical than usual.
Scotland, you see, already has anti-gun laws tougher than even they have yet called for here. When their screeching is heard, never forget that!
It's elementary. If someone has lost his senses so far as to decide to commit murder-suicide, what possible deterrent could be introduced to the wreckage of his mind by the presence of laws that say he needs a permit for a gun? - the very idea is totally absurd on its face.
Ah, but, they will say, it's not just the permit requirement, it's the availability of guns. If it's impossible to get one because they are all locked up in a government warehouse, the man about to go berserk could not physically lay hands on a gun; he could not even steal one.
That's theoretically true, but if we hear them try that one let's jump all over it straight away, by pointing out the deception: they are cleverly mixing up two different ideas. One, have laws; two, end the supply.
Those two are quite separate; it's possible, alas, to write any number of anti-gun laws, but that does nothing whatever to take existing weapons out of circulation. Privately owned handguns were "collected", I recall, in the mid-40s in Scotland; but those who did not wish to turn them in to the government, broke the law and kept them anyway. And all of those guns are still in circulation, and will stay there. The Dunblane Killer may have bought four of them, and the next killer will get some of them too. For good or ill, the genie is out of the bottle; and in this country, 100 million privately owned guns are not going to evaporate just because someone writes another law.
Armed, and Polite
They hate it so, it may be quite a while before the anti-gun nuts reconcile themselves to that fact, but it's a fact anyway: guns are out there and are going to stay out there, and nobody at all can change that. The only thing we can do is to stop discouraging their use for individual self-defense.
There's an old saying that bears repetition: "An armed society is a polite society" and clearly, that's true. Anyone with mischief on his mind will think twice if he knows his intended victim is likely to be armed.
Do I recommend that 6-year-old school kids take a piece with them to class? - of course not; nor anyone else until they understand how to use one. But I do hope that their teacher does; it would be no bad idea for any young lady to have a shooter in her purse, just in case. It would do wonders for the rape rate. For one of the "weaker sex" especially, a handgun is a great equalizer.
Would the likely presence of a gun in class have deterred the Dunblane killer? - no, for he was suicidal anyway. And his action was so incredible that without doubt some of the 15 kids would have been dead before the teacher (or perhaps a janitor or other teacher passing the door) could grasp what was happening and react; but if she had had one, there is just a chance that she could have put an end to the carnage before it was finished. Several small lives might have been saved, but for that government's anti-gun laws. Yes, the chance of that was small; but it's far larger than the one they had!
Recall the Ferguson case on the Long Island Railroad, a few years back? - or the MacDonald's shooting spree in California, in the 80s? In each of these, a crazed gunman opened fire on several dozen unsuspecting people and killed many of them. I recall also a local case in Newbury, NH; a man incensed beyond reason by the bureacratic stubbornness of a local government walked in and slaughtered all its clerks, and then himself.
Now, in each of those cases, had the victims been better armed the outcomes could have been very different. Many lives could have been saved. If in Newbury each clerk had kept a gun in her desk, the killer might have shot half of them (given the surprise factor) but could have been cut down before ending the lives of them all; several minutes elapsed during the spree. If on the LIRR many of the passengers had had a gun in their briefcases, likewise: Ferguson could not face two ways at once and there would have been good opportunity to limit his carnage. The same at the restaurant slaughter.
Gun-control nuts are some of the most dangerous members of our society.
|© Copyright Jim Davies 1999|
Jim Davies lives in New Hampshire,
and enjoys contemplating which way is up.
The above is Edition # 293
Back to Subject Index
Links to Other Great Freedom Sites
Financial Freedom NOW