Old Soldier

The Journal News, a New York newspaper, has published the names and addresses of residents in Westchester and Rockland counties who possess handgun permits.  Their “article” is entitled, “The gun owner next door: What you don’t know about the weapons in your neighborhood.”  The information used to ‘out’ neighbors possessing legitimate handgun permits was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.  I presume warning ‘unarmed’ residents of the threat posed by their ‘armed’ (actually permit holders) neighbors was so important that it usurped the [armed] citizens’ rights “to be secure in their persons, houses…”

The viscerally reckless response perpetrated by The Journal News is unconscionable and cannot be defended by any amount of illogical and twisted reasoning.  The Journal News has potentially targeted permit owner’s homes as possible targets for theft of weapons as well as those without permits as soft targets.

The Journal News justified its irresponsibility by stating, “Our readers are understandably interested to know about guns in their neighborhoods.”  I can only assume that the underlying motivation for such a clear violation of privacy is a mindset that all ‘gun owners’ are evil and may explode into violent mass murders at any moment; that people who own firearms are somehow not trustworthy.

I believe the vast majority of lawful gun owners in this country are notably more responsible than liberally oriented ‘reporters’ and ‘news casters.’  Just review the ‘news’ lately and you will see: a vast campaign aimed at villain-izing a specific type of firearm via inappropriate labeling, visceral demands for new ‘gun control’ laws intended to infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed rights, total ignorance of the fact that existing laws were broken in all firearm associated crimes, and of course absolute disregard for the fact that firearms are inanimate objects.

The current liberal uproar totally defies logic.

Yesterday I zeroed in on the progressive liberal’s visceral response to Lanza’s deranged slaughter of children in the form of a renewed effort to restrict constitutional rights – aka gun control.  I stated, “Had one of those adults in the administrative area been skilled in firearms handling and in the possession of a firearm, Lanza may never have made it to the classroom.  Singlehandedly, an individual does not stand much of a chance against a deranged person with a firearm; unless that individual also possesses and knows how to use a firearm.  There is a reason deranged assassins choose schools and gun-free theaters, versus a police station, to reek their havoc.”

In response to my supposition that an armed response to Lanza may have very well prevented the slaughter of children, I received the following comment, “It is complete BS to think that any school official with “knowledge of how to use a firearm” would have been able to stop an assault of a deranged murderer wielding multiple weapon semi-automatic in nature, body armor (reportedly) and had the element of surprise.”

There are several reasons Lanza’s deranged attack was so devastatingly successful; however, being skilled in executing an armed assault is most likely not one of them.  I seriously doubt Lanza possessed even a modicum of assault knowledge much less an understanding of the effect of surprise and shock.  Had the people in the administrative office presented a unified resistance and a will to fight collectively, even without arms, they may have been able to overpower Lanza. My understanding is that the principal lunged at Lanza and was shot in the process – a true hero.  Unfortunately, the others in the office did not immediately follow suit, or at least there has been no indication of such.

People like Lanza are fundamentally cowards, not lion-hearted warriors skilled in executing armed assaults.  In Lanza’s case that statement is substantiated by the fact that as soon as he realized police were in the building he stopped his shooting spree and killed himself.  He did not possess the courage or wherewithal to engage someone willing to fight in response.

Lanza met with no will to fight in defense of self or others.  Yes, a teacher sacrificed herself by trying to physically shield her students – a passive move that cost the lives of the students anyway.  Surely she heard the commotion in the admin office that was broadcast over the speaker system.  Had she possessed a will to fight she may have positioned herself next to the door and grappled with Lanza the moment he entered her classroom.  She may have still been killed, but she may have created an opportunity for some of the children to escape out windows, another door, etc.

My point is that passive behavior in the face of a Lanza is sure death; however, deciding to fight may very well change the situation if not for self, perhaps for others.  Where several people decide to collectively resist, there is a much greater probability of changing the outcome.  I believe had Lanza met with an armed response his whole world would have folded, because he fully expected otherwise. 

Enabling the amount of carnage Lanza was able to inflict is an underlying societal belief that the way to survive an assault (armed or otherwise) is to remain compliant and passive – do nothing to provoke the attacker.  This misguided response is espoused repeatedly by professionals who should know better.  A majority of professionals who teach self defense agree that a violent response, displaying a will to fight, actually increases a victim’s probability to survive the assault.  A passive response only makes it easier for an assailant to do as he pleases with his victim.

By now I’m sure you have at least surmised that if accosted I am not of a mind to roll over and die passively.  I have predetermined in my mind that I will use whatever means is available to neutralize what I perceive as a lethal threat to me, my family, and anyone else I perceive to be in mortal danger.  I will not go gently into the good night…

It is time to realize that we have enabled the Lanzas of the world by desensitizing them with regard to violence and killing other human beings.  How?  …by not objecting to graphic movies, video games and the like.  Quite obviously, some people have difficulty separating fantasy from reality.  We have probably passed the point of no return when it comes to turning that situation around.  However, we could minimize some of the potential damage by training those, in whom we trust the care of our children, in the arena of defense.  Whether or not firearms are included in such training is actually immaterial.  Instilling knowledge of how to defend oneself and others, and the will to act defensively in this day and age could prove to be absolutely invaluable.

Unnecessarily restricting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, even under the misguided pretense of ‘saving even one life’ is absolutely appalling.  An ostrich approach to recognizing the real situation and failing to respond appropriately should not be appeased by a totally visceral knee-jerk response.  Instituting more gun control will do nothing to deter the next Lanza, nor will it mitigate potential carnage.  The only outcome will be a false sense that ‘something’ was done to prevent the unpreventable.  I am not willing to lay my rights on the sacrificial alter of totally ineffective liberal feel-good legislation.

I cannot fathom the mental and emotional anguish being experienced by the loved ones of those slaughtered in Newtown, CT.  Children being mercilessly killed in what is supposed to be a safe haven, their school, is unbelievably evil.  My heart and prayers go out to them; may God comfort them as only He is able.

I literally despise the progressive liberal capitalization of this tragedy by reintroducing the ‘gun control’ controversy so rapidly after a deranged human chose to commit mass murders in an elementary school.  The visceral reaction defies logic.  Any attempt to correlate ‘preventing’ deranged actions by restricting firearm action type or magazine size is purely illogical appeasement.  An equivalent correlation would be to attempt to control the size of forks and spoons in an attempt to control obesity in America.  After all, obesity is a medically acclaimed contributor to the extremely potent killer heart disease. 

Controlling the sales of certain firearms or magazines to legitimate citizens will in no way curb the actions of deranged persons or criminals; it will merely infringe upon our rights guaranteed under the second amendment.  The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.  Since law enforcement is reactive, not proactive, limiting my ability to protect myself against armed criminals and deranged beings literally violates this amendment.

The very same ideologically inclined politicians and people would scream like banshees should freedom of speech be infringed upon, well certain speech, anyway…   So where is the same tenacious letter of the law support for the second amendment?  Not everyone who possesses or carries a firearm is a potential mass murder.  In fact, Lanza was not in possession of a lawful permit to carry a firearm and most likely could not have passed a background check required to purchase a firearm.  He utilized firearms owned by his mother.  So, where is the outcry that his mother did not exercise reasonable precautions to prevent her mentally challenged son from accessing her firearms? 

Enacting law or policy that restricts the purchase or ownership of certain firearms and/or magazines is about control, and in no way will contribute to preventing another Columbine, Virginia Tech, or Newtown.  As reported by NBCNews, the worst attack on a school took place in 1927, in Bath, MI, where 38 children and 7 adults were slaughtered by explosive devices (aka bombs).  Without doing the research, I’m fairly sure private ownership of bombs was not lawful at the time.

If there is to be a sincere discussion pertinent to protecting our children in school settings it must include firearms training and possession by educators.  Had one of those adults in the administrative area been skilled in firearms handling and in the possession of a firearm, Lanza may never have made it to the classroom.  Singlehandedly, an individual does not stand much of a chance against a deranged person with a firearm; unless that individual also possesses and knows how to use a firearm.  There is a reason deranged assassins choose schools and gun-free theaters, versus a police station, to reek their havoc.

Anyone who blindly and viscerally espouses the notion that controlling the sale and ownership of semi-automatic firearms will most likely find the following totally believable…

Dateline, November 15, 2012.  Tragedy strikes Hometown, America…  Initial findings indicate that a Smith & Wesson, Model 29 revolver, managed to escape its storage place on a bedroom closet shelf, maneuver to the hall closest where its ammunition was stored, load itself, and maneuver back into the bedroom where it shot to death its owner and his wife who were asleep at the time. The Smith & Wesson Model 29 was found hiding under the nightstand from where it surrendered without further incident.  Police are trying to establish a motive at this time. The names of the victims are being withheld pending notification of their next of kin.  No one else was present in the home at the time of the deadly assault.