As time passes since a mentally-deranged person stabbed, ran over, and shot his way through Isla Vista in Santa Barbara County, California, and another incident in Santa Monica, California in 2013, what have we really learned? Not about the persons committing the acts – the media spun these events (and others like it in the succeeding weeks) to focus attention on their agenda of promoting gun control – but about some inconvenient facts that the gun control crowd is minimizing.
1) California has some of the most restrictive regulations on purchasing and owning guns in the nation. These regulations did absolutely nothing to prevent the Isla Vista killer from legally purchasing the guns, magazines, and ammunition. The gun-control politicians have stated repeatedly that these laws were necessary to prevent criminals and killers from getting their hands on weapons. Obviously, these laws & regulations did not.
2) Gun-free zones did nothing to deter the carnage. Indeed, the manifesto of the Isla Vista killer stated that these areas were targeted due to the lack of resistance (or presence) of armed people. A high body count was desired before the end.
3) Guns weren’t the only weapons used in the Isla Vista incident. A knife and a car were also used in this rampage. This shows that a determined person has other options besides a gun to inflict harm and create mayhem.
4) It took someone with a gun to show up to stop the carnage. That’s right, after seven people were killed and over twenty were injured in Isla Vista and six in Santa Monica, the police showed up and ended the killing sprees.
5) The father of one of the Isla Vista victims railed and ranted against gun owners and the NRA for promoting gun violence. While I can understand this man’s grief, it is the person that committed the act, not the weapons used (knife, car, & gun) nor any organization or other individual. Gun owners and the NRA advocate the responsible ownership and use of guns, which DO NOT INCLUDE running around and shooting people. This is the brainwashing that the media promotes after almost every tragedy involving a gun no matter what the circumstances.
This incident (among others) proves to me that no matter what laws and regulations the politicians pass for whatever purpose to reduce crime, crime will continue to happen because individuals, whether sane or insane, will commit crimes of various types. This incident also proves to me that a nutcase can come out of the woodwork at any time and wish to harm my family or myself for the most mundane reason, or worse, no reason at all.
This is what the gun-control crowd refuses to realize – it goes against their mindset of a perfect world of where everyone gets along and no one will hurt them. This Pollyanna view of the world just isn’t so – a view of the international news from Ethiopia to Sudan to even news of our cities (like Chicago or Detroit) bursts that bubble. And folks with that attitude are bound and determined to get themselves and anyone else that listens to them killed.
The anti-gun crowd is continuing their predictable hand-wringing, wailing, and calling for more restrictive laws and regulations that will do nothing but inconvenience law abiding citizens and encourage more people to become unarmed and unable to defend themselves. From examiner.com:
That everything currently being pushed on the national level as “common sense” and “reasonable” is already in place in California, that it proved wholly inadequate at stopping a determined, mad killer, and that this does not enter into what passes for their thought processes, shows they will not be satisfied until all guns are banned from private ownership. There can be no other conclusion.
The media is also delving into the life of this mentally-ill person, bringing up every detail possible. These actions, in my opinion, are encouraging the next person to see what they can do to increase the body count before they too are analyzed in the media with their name front and center with a picture. It doesn’t matter how graphic and pathetic the picture is painted of this person, all the media is doing is encouraging the next glory-seeker by giving them a blueprint of how to increase the carnage.
Folks, I don’t know about you, but I refuse to be a passive victim and go quietly when threatened with life-threatening harm. I don’t particularly care if it is a criminal or a psychopath, I will remove the threat to my family and person should that situation arises and requires such actions. Why, you may ask?
My right of self-defense of my family and of my person trumps the feelings of someone that is uncomfortable with the notion of guns and violence. This right predates our Constitution and the Second Amendment. Look to the Bible, or if so inclined, this quote from the Dalai Lama:
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” – Dalai Lama, 2001
Gun laws have no effect on gun violence just as much as outlawing burglary reduces break-ins. All gun-free zones do is make people feel safe in a target-rich environment until the rampage begins.
From BearingArms.com (the shooter’s name has been edited out):
When will Californian’s realize that their gun laws will never stop those twisted souls intent on mass murder, and merely ensure that a madman will face no credible threat of legally armed opposition when he carries out his attack?
None of California’s restrictive gun laws made a difference to … first three victims, who were stabbed to death. It’s also quite clear that laws passed by craven politicians who claimed they wanted to prevent mass shootings were entirely ineffectual, as gun rights advocates stated that they would be as these laws were being debated.
From another post on BearingArms.com (again, the shooter’s name has been edited out):
The attacks carried out by a spoiled son of Hollywood who murdered six people and wounded 13 more in Santa Barbara, California this past Friday night, are being used by frothing collectivists as a call to action in their endless crusade to strip Americans of their right to be arms.
It matters little to them that the 22-year-old attacker, was a deeply disturbed individual that had been in therapy since the age of eight years old. They do not care that his condition apparently worsened during his teen-aged years, to the point … was in therapy on an almost daily basis. The rambling manifesto he left behind showed … to be a narcissist, misogynist, racist who felt himself to be perfect, and who despised almost everyone else. He’d hoped to murder family as part of his attack, including his six-year-old brother, whom he feared would be more popular with women than he had been. Obviously, the battery of therapists that had seen … over his 14 years of treatment either failed to discover how dangerous he was, or they failed to communicate how dangerous he was to the proper authorities.
Here’s one additional thing that we have learned: The gun is not the problem. Most of the mass-killings from Columbine onward have been perpetrated by mentally unstable people who do not have a sense of right or wrong, who have somehow been allowed to have access to weapons of various kinds, and are in desperate need of therapy, medication, and (dare I say it) institutionalization. These people are not only threats to themselves, but to the people around them. But this is not what the politicians are focused upon other than lip service.
Dealing with mental health is a political minefield that politicians do not want to go into. Patient privacy, funding, and the inexact science called psychology are only a few of the holes that a politician can wander into and become lost. Easier to blame and vilify an object rather than have people that will accuse the politician of being insensitive and discriminatory. Thus, the responsibility of action has been shifted from a person to an object.
That, my friends, is the problem. Who really, seriously, blames the perpetrator of the crime? Think about that for a little bit…
Personal responsibility has been shifted from the individual to something else. People are only too willing to shift their personal safety to the police, blame their less than stellar actions to society, and to trust their very existence to government handouts. Without “skin in the game,” the responsibility that a person has for their actions is now transferable to something or someone else, thus avoiding blame for any consequences and their own inaction. This action also allows the blame-shifter to accuse others for their own shortcomings.
Next, the psycho-babble analysts delve into the person’s “issues” and “problems” seeking that “trigger” that caused a person to go off the deep end and sidle up to those “evil” guns to commit horrendous acts. Again, it’s never the person that commits the crime, it’s always “something else” that caused it. Ultimately, the perpetrator becomes a victim, and is almost never held fully accountable for their actions.
Last, the politicians blame the gun for the killings. The victims blame the gun for the killings. The parents of the victims and the perpetrator blame the gun for the killings. Those evil gun-rights activists and the NRA are also blamed for the killings – how dare they defend the rights of people to bear arms when those arms are used to kill people?
Again, my right of self-defense of my family and of my person trumps the feelings of someone that is uncomfortable with the notion of guns and violence. Removing a means of defense from harm from a great many people because of the insane actions of a few is insanity in and of itself, no matter how idealistic the politicians or gun-banning crowd spin it.
I close this post with the following excerpts from Genevieve Wood from “The Daily Signal”:
We are never going to be able to pass enough laws or ban enough items to stop evil from happening. People do bad things—and guns, mental illness, and violent video games aren’t always to blame. There are times when the only explanation is that the person acted on his evil desires and intentions.
…because if we pretend evil doesn’t exist, or don’t dare mention it for fear of being politically incorrect, or pass off every bad person as someone who was mentally ill or had bad parents or watched too much violence on TV, or any combination of those, we lull ourselves into thinking more laws will end violence. We come to believe that once we’ve passed enough laws, “never again,” will be a reality—until violence does happen again.
Our second president, John Adams, said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” He was right. People are not angels. Laws are necessary. But we delude ourselves if we think they will banish all evil from the world.