Binghamton Shooting - Harsh Reality

We are recently apprised of the blood spilled in New York. Blood baths like this make the news every now and then. Of late, there seems to be a disproportionate amount of mass shootings in the news. No sooner have the bodies hit the floor than everyone wrings their hands and asks, "Why?" and The Search for Answers begins. Invariably we hear about societal ills - too much violence in entertainment, the despondency of pop culture, the superfluence of weapons available in America, etc. Invariably, someone will propose a "solution," and months or years later we find ourselves staring at another blood soaked room piled with warm corpses. I have a few observations about mass shootings. These incidents have many common elements from which we can learn how to not make it happen again.

The first commonality is the inability of the victims to return fire. These massacres always occur in Gun Free Zones - you know, places where some wise policy maker has declared it illegal to carry a gun. Somehow the shooters always ignore the signs, policies and laws. When these things happen, we ask "How could this HAPPEN?" when quite plainly, the answer is that no one had the ability to shoot back.

The only exception to the Gun Free Zone rule that I can think of is the shooting in Samson, Alabama. In New York, Columbine, V-tech, and all the other school shootings, the victims were all forbidden from the means to protect themselves. Samson is a little different, because Alabama allows concealed carry. However, it's worthy to note that it occurred in a small town where such an incident is far less likely to occur. So even though they could have been armed, those who encountered the shooter were not, likely for the same reasons most most small-town Americans wouldn't carry a gun in their home town, but would on a trip to a big city. But with that exception, every other shooting has occurred somewhere where people were FORBIDDEN to protect themselves with firearms.

The second thing to note is that the police have yet to save anyone. Columbine, V-Tech, and New York give us a score of Killers: 55, Cops: 0 (not counting the shooters, who bagged themselves.) So far the only hero coming to the rescue is Suicide, which has ended each of the above massacres. Can you imagine being at the mercy of a madman, knowing that your only chance is for him to kill himself?

So where were the cops? Well, in New York, they were hiding behind their cars, judging by the pictures on Fox News. In Columbine and V-Tech they found better cover (trees.) That's right - the same SWAT teams that will blow your door off the hinges, storm into the house, flashbang your kids, and hold your family hostage while they scream curses at you if they suspect you're selling pot, will hide behind whatever they can find when there is a REAL threat. (Thanks to David Codrea for making this point over at his blog - The War on Guns. I can't take credit for the idea, but it's worth reiterating.)

Further, when the smoke clears, the cops (or at least their spokespersons) are the first ones to come out against allowing any member of the public from protecting themselves. We hear the same tired tripe about how it will only "escalate the violence" and that you should always give the aggressor what they want. So the question is, what if they want to kill you? (More props to David.)

Now don't get me wrong - I can't entirely fault the cops for hiding behind trees and cars. I mean in each of these situations, they had no way to know how many shooters there were, where they were, how they were armed, etc. And statistically, the event usually ends itself, so to speak. They want to go home at the end of the day, and charging into gunfire won't help them accomplish that goal. My objection is to the notion that they are somehow going to protect us. So far, their track record is worse than failure. Sure, in this litigious society, public officials are going to be reticent to tell people to go arm themselves. But we've seen multiple times now that the alternative is NOT that the police will protect you. THEY WON'T. They'll stand by while you die and pick up the shooter's brass when it's all over. The choice we have is NOT between police protection and self protection - the choice is between self protection and NO protection.

Next we come to the common threads in the media reporting. In the hours following a massacre, there is an ongoing contest amongst the major news outlets to make the incident sound as horrible as possible. Demonization of the weapon used must be maximized and facts about the weapon's legality, charateristics, capabilities, and functionality must be ignored for full effect. After all, the public is much more likely to cry out for a ban if the shooter was weilding a full auto .50 caliber high power sniper assault rifle that fires armor piercing heat seeking laser guided bullets accurate to a mile at 87 rounds per second with a 5,000 shot clip, pistol grip, bayonet lug, folding stock, barrel shroud and thing in the stock which tells time that anyone (including your kids!) can buy at Wal-Mart for $59.95 with no permit, background check and even if you tell the checkout clerk, "I AM GOING TO KILL PEOPLE WITH THIS."

Another commonality is the outcry to "do something" (see above rationale for such outcry). Instead of analyzing the FACTS of the situation, the anti gunners rely on good ol' emotion.
FACT: If no one can shoot back, everyone is at the shooter's mercy.
FACT: The shooter does not care what the law says.
FACT: The police can't respond as fast as anyone in the killing zone, and when they get there, they are historically proven to wait until the incident is over to do anything.
FACT: GUN CONTROL LEAVES PILES OF BODIES IN ITS WAKE.

Collectively, we refuse to learn from these massacres. Collectively, we promote the murder with every new citizen disarmament law that is passed. Collectively, we willingly cede power to mass murderers and psychopaths.