by Jack Lee
In the wake of the Newtown School shooting many distraught parents, elected officials, and political pundits are expressing their opinions and concerns about what happened at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. It’s right to do so we can try to find the answers we need to prevent another such tragedy, but the disinformation coming from the mainstream media is threatening to derail all meaningful and helpful dialog.
How could a madman, armed with 3 high powered weapons, some capable of firing 6 shots a second, walk onto the grounds of a grammar school and slaughter 26 people, 20 under the age of 9?
Many are now saying it’s time for a ban on assault weapons, high powered rifles that should only be used by the military. We need laws to prevent mentally ill persons from purchasing these weapons of mass destruction! This is the prevailing talk expressed by so many after this tragic and preventable disaster.
The question heard today is, maybe it’s time for Connecticut (and the rest of the nation) to pass tough gun control laws, like banning the ownership of deadly assault weapons? That sounds strange to an informed person, because you would then know we already have those laws. And besides that important point, no assault weapons were used to commit this horrific crime! NONE! Guns were used, but not high powered assault weapons. But, that doesn’t stop the media from saying they were does it?
FACT: Possession of an assault weapon in Connecticut is prohibited and possession of one is a Class D felony. I found this law in 1 minute, why couldn’t our media?
The next talked about question is about the ownership of high capacity magazines. Shouldn’t they be made illegal too? Well, guess what? They already have such a law, it was on the books long before Adam Lanza went on his shooting spree. Don’t hear the media pointing that out either…strange?
FACT: Connecticut law says possession of magazines or clips holding more than ten rounds of ammunition are a Class D felony.
Well, maybe Connecticut should pass a law banning high powered weapons, right?
You might raise that issue, but since no high powered weapons were used by Lanza it’s a moot point.
FACT: Two 9mm pistols were used and these are not considered high powered. 90% of pistol cartridges out here are more powerful than a 9mm. Regarding the Bushmaster, .223 caliber, rifle that was used, again it’s not a high powered rifle at all. In fact the .223 round is one of the smallest center fire rifle rounds on the market. Yet, the media constantly refers to the Bushmaster rifle as this uber-weapon, a deadly assault weapon and how it’s so powerful! This sounds so ludicrous to informed people, because it’s just more disinformation coming out of the mouths of some very dangerously ignorant people. These are people commenting on a subject that they obviously no nothing about and that is the second half of this tragedy.
You would think that a responsible news program or commentator or their guest experts on gun control might get their facts straight, right? But they never do. At the very least that is irresponsible journalism, but I think it goes deeper. I think there is another agenda here that leads to deception done deliberately. They’ve long been part of the far left gun-grabber crowd. A crisis like Sandy Hook should not be wasted, it should be exploited for all it’s worth… to seize guns.
Referring to the Bushmaster rifle, “These weapons are capable of firing 6 rounds a second”, said a Congressman from Connecticut. These are semi-automatic firearms and the trigger must be pulled each time a round is fired. A machine gun is the only weapon that is designed to fire full automatic. Military weapons, commonly called assault weapons, can often fire either single rounds or multiple rounds with a trigger pull, but these are not sold to general public and generally speaking they are illegal to possess. To own a machine gun or full automatic weapon requires a special background and license. I know of no incident where the licensed owner of a machine gun ever used it in a crime.
“We need tougher gun laws to stop these killings!” said Lisa Hoops in her 2011 story about gun violence in America. Sweden has some of the most strict gun control laws anywhere, yet 69 people, mostly young adults and teenagers, were cut down by a neo-Nazi using a full automatic weapon… obtained illegally.
People with a mental disorder should not be allowed to buy firearms, we can all agree on that one! And Connecticut’s shooter, Adam Lanza, didn’t own a gun. The guns he had in his possession were purchased legally by his mother. She possessed no illegal weapons at all, not even the alleged assault weapon and she followed all the strict gun control laws. She was a law abiding gun owner, but arguably, she may have been an irresponsible gun owner, as much as she was an irresponsible parent, because she let her mentally ill son have access to her weapons and he killed her. Bad judgement often has bad consequences, but you can’t legislate against that.
She knew her son was mentally ill and she frequently expressed her anger at the school system for failing to provide assistance for his condition. So why would she have these weapons at his disposal? Was it denial, stupidity, or something else? At this time we don’t know, all we know is her son suffered from a personality disorder, a mild form of autism and the only concern people seemed to have about Adam was that he could become the object of bullying.
Good thing the school had a security consultant who helped them erect video cameras and a security fence with an electric lock. Bad thing they didn’t use it to keep Lanza out. The school authorities let the gunman enter and he had no business being there. Nobody questioned why he wanted in. And contrary to the news media, his mother had never even been employed there. Before people go pointing fingers at gun owners, they better examine this one.
Imagine if you can, you’re a teacher and you are at the Sandy Creek School administrators’ meeting and included in the meeting is the school’s psychiatrist and the principal. There’s a few minutes left before the meeting starts and you’re licensed to carry a concealed handgun. You want to upgrade and so you offer to sell your pistol to your fellow teachers. You might say, “Here, take a look at this, I’m asking just $200” and you pull it out of your concealed holster to display. Your peer group looks at you horror! They recoil at the sight of the gun in their midst. The school principal snaps at you, “Mr. Smith! You can’t bring a loaded gun on these premises, that’s illegal. This is a gun free zone! And NO, NOBODY WANTS TO BUY YOUR STUPID GUN…REMOVE IT immediately, take it home…right NOW!” You leave as ordered. You are humiliated and drive back to your home to offload your pistol. On your way Adam Lanza, in his mother’s car, passes you on his way to the Sandy Hook school. In a few minutes the value of your gun will become apparent…it will be too late of course. ( I bet you could name your price once the shooting starts.)
Instead if addressing the killing as a problem with our Second Amendment I’d like to talk about addressing it from our First Amendment.
Since we’re dealing with mentally and/or emotionally sick individuals I’d like to have our media not publish or broadcast the names of these killers who may be motivated to commit these horrible acts just for the “fame” it brings them. Remember we’re dealing with sick people here.
Can any of us name any of the victims from the Oregon or Colorado shootings? I know I can, but I’ll bet we can all name the murders. If we take away their desire for fame will it make a difference? Maybe. For me it’s worth it.
There would be no laws changed, only a change in how the news is presented. The coverage is driven by our desire to know what happened, but we can also let them know what we don’t want covered. Most of our media already doesn’t show the bodies of victims. They could and should also withhold the murder’s name if we demanded it. I’m not calling for a boycott, but I am saying we should all let the news channel and stations we watch and listen to to omit any and all information about the murder.
This is a consumer driven media, providing what they think we want. Well, I don’t want to know who these people are, nor do I need to know who they are if it could prevent another senseless killing of more innocent children.
If the killers believe their claim to fame moment is to see their name plastered everywhere in the media take it away. Let them know it will be the victim’s names we’ll remember and not theirs. The killer’s name will not be written or spoken EVER.
Also…The media does not currently release the names of rape victims and minors. Simply add killers to the list.
I agree, the name of the shooter shouldn’t be published. It is not relevant and it only encourages wackos to seek fame this way.
But, my main gripe is how the media has botched the reporting on this and inflamed people’s passions. Without an honest basis to begin talking about any problem, gun control or otherwise, there can be nothing gained.
The sad part is a lot of people could have stopped this disaster from happening, and no doubt there were many, many occasions for intervention:
The mental health professionals could have stopped the shooter if they did their job.
The mother could have prevented the shootings, if she kept her guns away from her son and demanded his hospitalization for severe mental illness.
The school could have prevented the shooting if they didn’t let him in through the locked security gate.
Some people at the school herded kids into a corner. That’s not rational, it provides a compact target. Telling kids to run for their lives is better than confining them in a tight space where the shooter could get at them.
Walking out to find out where the shots are coming from is not rational either. Unarmed, without police, to see what the problem is or to have a chat with a deranged shooter is incredibly foolish. Getting yourself killed only adds to the chaos and the shooters score. One would think the school’s mental health professional would have acted differently, same could be said for the principal.
How ’bout we just ban liberals for a change!
There are countless ways that liberal politics and mores contribute to the atmosphere that spawns cruel and thoughtless violence. Liberals tolerate, embrace and/or fight in the courts for keeping God out of the classroom, the fine art of tagging, separatism, drugs, free sex, open/disparate marriage law, lowered standards in education, notions of good and evil being a few examples. Our kids are encouraged to emote rather than to think.
According to Gateway Pundit civil liberties groups (like ACLU) worked their magic too right in Connecticut:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/far-left-groups-defeated-connecticut-mental-health-protection-laws-just-months-before-shooting/
Here’s the link to ACLU written testimony protesting the Connecticut proposed law:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/JUDdata/Tmy/2012SB-00452-R000329-David%20McGuire-%20ACLU-TMY.PDF
You might want to read a list of liberal progressive activism going back to the 1960’s here:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/liberal-policies-are-to-blame-for-todays-mass-shooting-in-newtown-ct/
YES!!!!
Excellent points Tina, I have believed for a long time that we as a society need to focus more on the root cause of instances like this and less on the tools people use to perpetrate them. Behavioral heath is growing problem everywhere and States like Connecticut cannot turn a blind eye to it, no matter the cost, because you either pay in tax dollars or in Newtown’s case human life’s. Now we need to look at Calif’s Laura law, the main problem is it’s voluntary application by any county, the people who need this assistance become migratory and select areas that serve their individual needs. Chico had a excellent program years ago, but we lost a lot of well trained personnel who could not exist under the drastic cuts in the program. so we are left with fewer case workers and a expanding populace of behavioral heath clients. Over worked case workers need input from the community to better help their clients, and protect the rest of society.
Feeding, clothing and housing people with mental heath illnesses is not enough, in fact I have often referred to it as warehousing and taken a lot of flack for that statement. Daily interaction is needed with every client and that is where Butte county behavioral program has deteriorated into almost non-assistance. Random drug testing is a tool sorely needed to be used more often due to the ease of obtaining drugs in Chico, and alcohol is another factor as well. If Chico’s goal is to assist people with these health issues it is going to have to support them properly, With all the City Council time spent on green impact issues, let’s put this humanitarian issue in the forefront. We maybe surprised how many of Chico’s environmental problems get resolved as well.
I thought this woman’s position on the media deserved to be shared. We need to do something about the sick American fascination with both violence and celebrity and the entertainment and media participation nin that fascination…talk about a goolish, immoral means for make a buck!
Read the entire heartfelt appeal from one resident of Newtown, Connecticut at the American Thinker. I have excerpted the portions pertaining to media:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/newtown_the_latest_example_of_media_overkill.html
It is often the need to feel important, to be the celebrity of the day, to become a cult figure that influences decisions to go on a rampage.