Gun-Grabber Falsehood Distracts from What Makes Massacres Possible

The only option offered by those who would disarm you under force of law—take cover and hope the cops get to you before the killer does. [“Elementary French class students take cover in Holden Hall room 212.” by William Chase Damiano (edited for clarity by Xiaphias), CC BY-SA 3.0]

“There’s nothing in the constitution that guarantees the carry of firearms in public,” Lori Haas of Virginians for Responsible Gun Laws asserted to the Associated Press on “Lobby Day” at the Virginia State Capitol in Richmond. “There is the 2nd amendment which guarantees the ownership of firearms.”

As usual, she either doesn’t know what she’s talking about, or does but stays on point anyway. The Second Amendment includes “the right of the people to … bear arms,” but as usual, her deceptive prattling is a feint to keep attention away from the fact that she really doesn’t want you to be able to “keep” them either. Particularly those “in common use at the time”…

Haas’ interest in things is personal. Her daughter survived the Virginia Tech massacre after being shot twice. And like fellow survivor Colin Goddard, who had time to call 911 and duck for cover before the killer entered his classroom (and thus time to take a protective position and return fire had he been armed and prepared), she prefers everyone instead be rendered defenseless and helpless under armed force of “law,” that is, via “gun-free (citizen disarmament/predator enablement) zones.”

Back in 2008, The New York Times invited me to participate in a “one year after” Virginia Tech “discussion” panel. Basically, they pitted me against six doctrinaire anti-gunners, including Richard J. Bonnie, director of the Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy at the University of Virginia; Richard L. Canas, director of the State Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness; The Rev. Alexander W. Evans, pastor of the Blacksburg (Va.) Presbyterian Church and pastor to the Blacksburg Police Department; Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; Dr. Richard Kadison, chief of mental health services for Harvard University Health Services; and Ada Meloy, general counsel for the American Council on Education.

I guess they wanted it to be a fair fight. Or at least make a pretense of offering an opposing viewpoint. In any case, it felt pretty much like that BuzzFeed “How many five-year-olds can you realistically take in a fight?” quiz.

Here’s the thing about Virginia Tech that some of us commenting at the time attempted to publicize: Nine months before the shootings, graduate student Bradford B. Wiles wrote a letter to The Roanoke Times in response to a campus manhunt for a murder suspect.

“I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia,” Wiles wrote. “However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech’s student policy…”

The published response from University Vice President Larry Hincker was one of ridicule.

“[I]t is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles,” he wrote, using terms like “out of touch … inane [and] absurd” to underscore his points. “Guns don’t belong in classrooms,” he concluded. “They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.”

We saw Hincker’s “very sound policy” play out and prevent nothing. We saw 32 innocents slain without a chance, even though the police response to a campus shooter had begun two hours before the mass slayings at Norris Hall.

These many years year later, students, faculty, administrators, staff and visitors – and not just at Virginia Tech, but at all “gun-free” schools – are still powerless to protect themselves. And the prevailing sentiment against suggesting otherwise remains the same:

It’s a ridiculous idea. Citizens who are responsible enough to go armed throughout the Commonwealth cannot be trusted once they set foot on campus. It will result in more tragedy. Police are the only ones qualified to be armed.

And those responsible for that prevailing sentiment will use each new and inevitable outrage as another excuse to dance in the blood their subversion ensures will continue to be spattered and spilled.

Ending ‘Gun-Free School Zones’ Not as Easy as Trump Just Issuing an Order

Murderers know signs like these increase their odds of “success,” defined in this case as the ability to rack up a high body count and get headline media coverage.

Gun owners have expectations for Donald Trump once he assumes the presidency, and how well he steps up to address their concerns will set the tone for their still wary support. It goes without saying that disappointing a politically-active constituency that overlooked his problematic past on guns will set the tone for feelings of betrayal, along with all the resentment and hostility that will follow. Something immediate by the new president will go a long way in determining if the hope is sustainable.

One thing I wouldn’t expect is for Trump to end so-called “gun-free school zones” overnight with a waved of the executive wand. And an Arizona Daily Sun article helps explain why.

The piece starts out interviewing colleague Charles Heller, a one-man dynamo for RKBA advocacy through his Liberty Watch Radio program and as a co-founder of the Arizona Citizens Defense League. These folks, with their energy, dedication and creative lobbying, are a big part of why Arizona has such comparatively fewer infringements than most other states.

“The problem is the Republican Arizona Legislature, which refuses to budge on the problem,” Heller acknowledged.

That’s true in so many areas where real change is possible, but simply not put forth by GOP legislators enjoying the benefits of “A”-ratings from gun groups like NRA. Those grades often reflect how a questionnaire was answered, or what bills were voted for or against.  And aside from now endorsing “good guys with guns” in the form of school resource officers, we really don’t see NRA distancing itself from Wayne LaPierre’s position as stated at the 1999 annual meeting:

“First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America’s schools, period … with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.”

As a result of that “out,” finding lawmakers willing to put forth a radical departure from business as usual, something new, something that turns the status quo in its head, can be like pulling teeth. And that shows how the relative term “conservative” can also be an indication of supposed “leaders” who really prefer things remain just the way they are, infringements and all.

That’s shown in all its mealy-mouthed equivocation by Misty Arthur, executive director for the Arizona Federation of Teachers, who hopes the meaningless noise she makes about respecting the right to keep and bear arms will distract everyone from her huge “but”:

“It’s different when a school resource officer or a police officer has a gun on campus because they’re in uniform and students understand that. But allowing anyone to have a gun? I don’t see that there could be any good. And I’m a Republican, I believe strongly in the Second Amendment. But I believe it would bring more chaos, not protect the children.”

So in other words, she’d also agree with this assertion:

“Metal detectors and more police officers are a great start to the fight against guns in schools. A school is no place for a gun.”

That was Columbine killer Eric Harris, from a class paper on “Guns in Schools.”

If Misty really believed strongly, she’d be promoting “shall not be infringed,” instead of parroting first LaPierre, then Harris, and then the subversive Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence deception that “There is just no evidence to show that repealing those laws or requiring that guns be allowed into schools keeps people safer.”  Sure there is.

When the “school resource officer” exchanged shots with Harris at Columbine, he saved his own life, persuading the killer to retreat inside and take on easier prey. Then there was Vice Principal Joel Myrick stopping a killer at Pearl High School. There were armed students pinning down the University of Texas sniper until authorities could put him down.

That most of the time it takes second responders (the first are the ones doing the running, hiding, screaming and bleeding)  getting to a scene after the damage has been done is on the lying gun-grabbers, who would rather see children butchered than protected.

What Trump can do is urge Congress to get the ball rolling, and be a constant voice not to let them drag their feet and drop it. And it can’t just be a halt to prosecutions or repeal of the Gun Free Schools Act, because states have edicts of their own. Withholding federal funds could also come into play (and where fedgov has legitimate authority to disburse such funds in the first place is another matter). Then there would be lawsuits, which would keep things tied up for years, and would depend on filling federal bench and Supreme Court openings with judges who aren’t revisionist turncoats.

Everyone realizes though, all it will take is the next exploitation of a “gun-free school zone” resulting in mass deaths of children. Then the whole blood dance blame game on guns and those who own them will start all over again, stopping any real progress on the issue in its tracks.

It’s bigger than one man. Conversely, all it takes is one man to take advantage of those damnable signs and put the focus back on gun bans.