Mistakes were made; people died! Now, it's time to blame the innocent

The 2017 Texas Church shooting was a tragedy which shouldn't have happened.  There were people who knew (cough the United States Air Force cough) that the maniacal attacker should never have been allowed to purchase a firearm, but someone dropped the ball. 

And people died.

IN THE SEARCH for someone to blame (someone who was not dead, and so they could be sued), a Texas couple have chosen the sporting goods store who sold the gunman the firearm used in the shooting.

Academy sporting goods chain sued by couple wounded in Sutherland Springs church shooting | Courts | Dallas News: AUSTIN — A Texas couple who survived the Sutherland Springs church massacre last year have sued the sporting goods store that sold the gunman the firearm used in the shooting.

It's difficult to adequately assign the blame for the acts of a madman, but there's always someone who is willing to accept the challenge.   Usually, the target is someone with "Big Pockets", and so the survivors have chosen to attack the sporting goods store which sold the gun to a man whose record was crystal clear.

His record should not have been so transparent; his employer (United States Air Force) declined to report him as a "domestic abuser", so his application to purchase a firearm was not challenged.

But it's very difficult (and expensive!) to bring suit against an arm of the Federal Government ... but shouldn't the victims, and their families, have SOMEONE to blame?    So the survivors chose the least responsible, but most vulnerable, corporate identity in the BIZARRE chain of events: They sued the store that sold the gun to the man who shot the innocents even though his employer  (the Federal Government) knew he was irresponsible ... a "Domestic Abuser".

The store was not irresponsible; they followed the rules, and the rules required that they perform a background check.  They did that.  They found no reason to deny the purchase, on the federal database of "Bad Guys/No Fly List/Whatever!":

The problem was; nobody who was responsible survived!

Still, the survivors had a right to sue for damages (something about "denial of filial relationship", etc; .. I'm not a lawyer)   But they knew they could never be able to fund a suit against the Federal Government of the U.S. Air Force. 

So they sued the store who (entirely legally) sold the gun.   I don't blame them.  Someone had to pay.  The problem is ... nobody who was responsible

You can write the rest of the story.   You've read it all before. Plaintiff loses the case and is fined court costs plus legal fees.

NOBODY wins in this tragedy.

Parkland Students; Manifesto: My response:

Parkland students: our manifesto to change America's gun laws | Editorial staff of the Eagle Eye | US news | The Guardian: After the massacre at our high school, our lives have changed forever – so we’re proposing these changes to halt mass shootings March for Our Lives – live updates by Editorial staff of the Eagle Eye

I very much understand your fear and your concerns ... which are, here, one and the same.

I don't doubt that your concern about private firearms ownership is based upon your horrible experience, and I have no way to respond to those fears ... except to yield my own right to defend myself against similar attacks.   And I am not prepared to yield that right.

You are all very young.  You are not familiar with firearms, and you have been taught to fear them.  And your recent experiences have taught you that this fear is justified.   I share your dismay.

I am not prepared to yield my right to keep and bear arms, because of your fears.  I have my own fears, but they are based on the concern that I may be attacked ... and not "allowed" to defend myself.

I am very old.  I  have been shot at (a LOT!) and it was never my choice.

I was drafted into the army as a young man, not much older than yourselves  I was given a gun (and minimal training)  and sent to a foreign country to fight a war I didn't believe in for causes I did not understand.   A lot of us went  to Viet Nam, a lot of my friends died there, and I died a little bit there, too.

People who randomly attack peaceful citizens are just ... wrong.

I think we will agree with that; it's only common sense.

Well .. not obvious to everyone:
Personal Experience are a powerful testimony, even if their experiences are not universal:

We have a unique platform not only as student journalists, but also as survivors of a mass shooting. We are firsthand witnesses to the kind of devastation that gross incompetence and political inaction can produce. We cannot stand idly by as the country continues to be infected by a plague of gun violence that seeps into community after community, and does irreparable damage to the hearts and minds of the American people.

The Constitution of the United States has wisely acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms is not something that it can 'give' to us, but rather one which is intrinsic in all free people.  So it is with all of the "rights" enumerated in the Constitution, including the First Amendment Right to speak our thoughts without governmental interference.

And not "everybody" who owns a gun is a monster: the paint splatters widely and taints not only the Bad Guys With A Gun. but the rest of us ... who never pointed a gun at a person and would not do so other than exceptional circumstances ( to wit: protection of our selves or our family).

Unfortunately, too many Americans (and people all over the world) have abused that Right, and so we have to deal with the recurring theme of MONSTERS who use firearms to predate upon their fellow men and woman.

I applaud your determination to keep firearms away from those who would do us harm, or whose intention may someday do us harm.  Unfortunately, it's difficult (if not impossible) to predict just which villain may choose on the spur of the moment to use a firearm to attack us.

Or to drive his car into a crowded sidewalk.

Or to throw a gallon of gas into a disco dance floor, and light it.

Or to fly a hijacked airplane into a metropolitan skyscraper or two.

Or to place an explosive pressure cooker along the finish like of the Boston Marathon.

My point is that we cannot reasonably apply laws against gasoline, airplanes or pressure cookers because ... there are too many ways for men of ill will to predate against a sane society.

But there is ONE way which we can use to, perhaps, minimize the effect of "men of ill will" when they attack us; and that is to allow each of us who are armed, trained and prepared to defend the rest of us in times of great distress.

IT IS NOW LEGAL and permissible for men and women of good character (dependent upon a "background check" by civil authorities) to apply for, and be rewarded, a license to keep and bear concealed weapons in defense of themselves ant others.

(There was a time when it wasn't necessary to undergo Special Training and federal approval for an honest man to carry a gun ... but too many Bad Men have appeared in our society, and I guess it's not enough to have lived a frugal life to be commonly known as a "Responsible Gun Owner");

The police cannot be 'everywhere' ... but Concealed Handgun Licensees (CHLs) may be almost anywhere; and you will not know them until they are called upon to defend you and/or themselves. in the event that a random attack may occur.  The police cannot be 'everywhere", but the CHL may.

This is why I caution us to be concerned about comments like this:

We have a unique platform not only as student journalists, but also as survivors of a mass shooting. We are firsthand witnesses to the kind of devastation that gross incompetence and political inaction can produce. We cannot stand idly by as the country continues to be infected by a plague of gun violence that seeps into community after community, and does irreparable damage to the hearts and minds of the American people.

I understand that "mass shootings" are increasingly prevalent, and wee need to address the issue.

(Hey, I've owned guns for 60! years and I have yet to shoot up a university community, even though I live in a College Town and the "kids" in my neighborhood party until down!)

I would not argue against the concern about gross incompetence and political inaction  .. I only wonder what alternative  actions the authors might suggest.

Sadly, they have nothing to offer other than a squeal for action ... which they themselves are unable to propose.

There are three possible methods to address this very real and immediate "problem".

• Nobody has a gun
• Everybody has a gun
• Gun?  What's that?

If nobody has a gun, nobody has the means to defend herself': only criminals are armed.
If everybody has a gun, at least the proposed victim has the means to defend herself
If we just ignore the problem, it will never go away

Today, we are stuck in the fourth situation ... we are afraid to take action, we would prefer to write a law (which will not be obeyed), and we won't even question our options because it's just too difficult to decide what's right.  We can't even talk about it without slings and arrows flying every which way.

We know there are enough guns in America to arm every man and woman and child.

IN THE 1930's We banned fully automatic weapons (machine guns) because ... Capone.

In the 1090's we banned a lot of in-common-usage firearms because it was "politically expedient" to do so.  That went away, because the Assault Weapons Ban didn't do anything to reduce "Firearms Violence".

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was .. controversial at best; not distinctively helpful, at worst.

Today, our legislators are trying to decide what other guns they syhould ban, to reduce "firearms violence".  That has gone nowhere because after you "highly regulate full-automatic guns" all the guns left are "In Common Usage" .. except for this-and-that.


It seems obvious to me that gun-bans are nothing more than wishful thinking, imposed upon the  law-abiding citizens for the political purpose of folks who want to be elected to public office.

It may take a while, but I look forward to the day when gun bans are minuscule and rare because there are no political points to be made by office-seekers who know nothing about the firearms they choose to vilify in the current election cycle.

In the meantime, it seems obvious that any laws which are intended to reduce the proliferation of firearms in the America community will only affect the law-abiding.  Criminals, crooks and various neer-do-wells will ignore the laws, with the resultant effect that only law-abiding citizens whi wish to protect their homes and familislies with rapid-firing, high-velocity firearms with a quick reload option will be banned.  This will inconvenience (disarm) law-abiding home-owners, but the criminals the home invaders, and the bank robbers will not even momentarily be inconvenienced.

I think that I should have the same rights as bank robbers.  What do YOU think?

Oh, Crap!

When "The Economist" weighs in on a subject, it's a signal that we're so f*cking tired that anybody can have an opinion ... even if it's bullshit.   Which it is. (Nothing new here; move on!)

A minority of gun owners have a veto over gun laws - More mass shootings:
The NRA’s membership is relatively small. It should be less powerful than it is.

That's it?

That's all "The Economist" has to say about that?

Okay, I'm officially NOT blogging about the Texas Chainsaw Madman With A Gun Massacre any more. 

Nobody doesn't understand what happened there, nobody is any more or less upset.

But when the Mainstream Media (The "Economist", for Crissakes?) weighs in with nothing new to say except "GUNS BAD!"  you can be pretty sure that they no longer give a shit about the people who died there

follow-up!

"Concealed carry laws are a useless weapon against church shootings" - Chicago Tribune

The Trib lives up to its reputation for distorting the news, asserting that "Concealed Carry parishioners in Texas would have been unable to subdue a determined killer ..."

(See the original Chicago Tribune column by Dahleen Glanton) hereafter referred to as "she".

I must have misread all of the reports which categorically stated that an armed citizen stopped the Texas Church Shooting the other day.  (Reference: National Review, USA TODAY, CNN, CBS Baltimore. etc.)

Because a Chicago Tribune "contributor" contends that the man who stopped the Texas Church Shooting contends that he didn't stop the murders.

Concealed carry laws are a useless weapon against church shootings - Chicago Tribune:

Everyone knows that the issue of firearms is both complex and contentious. There is no “one-size-fits-all” answer to how to stop mass shootings from occurring in churches or anywhere else.

But it is unlikely a parishioner armed with a handgun would have been able to subdue a determined killer like Devin Kelley. Dressed in all black, wearing bulletproof tactical gear, carrying a military-style rifle and equipped with dozens of rounds of ammunition, Kelley entered the Texas church prepared for a massacre. When he was done, 26 people, about half of them children, were dead.

(emphasis added)

And yet, one armed man did stop the killing.  And you have a lot of nerve to contend that he did not.

It's amazing that a Chicago newspaper is so eager to denigrate the willingness of Texans to protect their own innocents; one can only assume that the Liberal Message ("Guns are always bad!") is more important than the truth as far as that Chicago Tribune contributor is concerned.

Glanton quotes Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (out of context):  

“All I can say is in Texas at least we have the opportunity to have conceal carry," he said. "And so ... there's always the opportunity that gunman will be taken out before he has the opportunity to kill very many people."

(Glanton opines:) "The attorney general is delusional if he thinks an armed church member or even a security guard could have frightened Kelley into submission."

It may be possible that the Tribune Reporter merely misunderstood the Attorney General of Texas.

More likely, she is so involved in her personal anti-gun opinion that she cannot be relied upon to candidly quote her original news source without demonstrating her contempt for defense of the Second Amendment.

Glanton lives in Chicago, which has (arguably) the most strict anti-gun laws, and the highest murder-by-gun rates in the country ... yet she has the temerity to castigate Texas because their laws allow a private citizen to stop a mass shooting before it went any farther than it did?

Perhaps the key point in her screed is evidenced in her phrase: " ... could have frightened (the murderer) into submission".

Lady, the armed Texan didn't "frighten Kelley into submission".

He shot him dead, right then and there.  In doing so he stopped the murder of innocents immediately.

(And you would hoped for a 'better solution"?  Like ... maybe he would have convinced the gunman to stop shooting people by voicing a persuasive, logical argument?)

People who don't recognize a Hero when they see one, and who are all-too-ready to second guess them for "doing the right thing" ...?

She disgusts me.