Yep - gun free zone!

All killings are tragedies. But has anyone else noticed that, with the rise of the movement to limit law-abiding citizens rights to keep and bear arms and protect themselves, every killing with a firearm has now been elevated to a national news story. Why don't we hear about every stabbing or bludgeoning to death?  Why don't we hear about every vehicular homicide?  The only conclusion to reach in this is that it is a matter of certain media outlets' desire to attack guns and, by proxy, gun owners.

We have one such example right now in the shooting at Seattle Pacific University.  Of course, one of the things that will not be mentioned is that, once again, a shooter chose to commit a murderous crime in a gun-free zone (see SPU policies here). [And, to all liberal news media - also note policy number 3.  Why no outrage over that!  Maybe the shooter was gay and felt discriminated against].

Time and again, from Columbine to Sandy Hook to the DC Naval Yards to this shooting and all in between, shooters know where they are most likely to be able to kill without intervention.  The fairy tale that if we close our eyes to a thing it will disappear is for children - and liberals.  I would hope that, at some point, the childish emotional response to such incidents would give way to reason.  That is, to a recognition that disarming law-abiding people even more widely will simply provide increased fertile hunting grounds for such actors.  I would hope that a more rational approach, such as that shown by research such as that produced by J. Eric Dietz and the Homeland Security Institute at Purdue University, would make a difference.  There research suggests, using computer modeling, that the idea that the thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun has merit.  One would hope that such "research" would dent some of the academic liberalism that pervades such debates.  I work with people who call themselves "scientists" - except when they talk of firearms. When it comes to issues of gun ownership and control, these scientists suddenly become people of faith (belief that does not require evidence - that actually decries it).

         

Mass killers don't care if the firearm they carry is illegal - that is a consideration only those who obey the law take into account.  Those who wish to kill as many people as they can choose to do so where they can expect the least resistance, where only a criminal would be carrying a firearm.  Most often mass killers have no intention of surviving and thus, do not fear being killed.  Hence, our best defense is to help them die sooner and defeat them in their goals of taking many with them.



Tying together several posts I have made over the last several days - saying that Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction" insults those who actually did so.  Saying that guns make people kill people insults every law-abiding gun owner.

Seems liberals love to insult people they know nothing about.