President Obama said that he wanted to politicize the shootings following the shooting in Oregon last week. He stopped off there to speak to the victims that were willing to see him before moving on to a fundraiser for Senator Patty Murray.
He has claimed that Congress needs to address gun control following several of the more recent shootings. Now he’s talking about using executive orders to get what he wants regardless of what the American citizens want. Yet none of his proposals would have prevented even one of these shootings.
So let’s take a look at the shootings and some of the similarities in each of them.
One shooter, first fired 30 rounds into a recruiting center, then went to the Naval Reserve and shot more.
Five dead, one wounded. The shooter was the only one with a gun.
Charleston, South Carolina:
One shooter. 9 dead. The shooter was the only one with a gun.
Sandy Hook, Newtown, Connecticut
One shooter. 27 dead 1 injured. The shooter was the only one with a gun.
One shooter. 12 dead. 70 wounded. The shooter was the only one with a gun.
Tucson, Arizona Supermarket
One shooter. 6 dead 12 wounded. Two people had a gun. The shooter had a gun, but he had finished with the shooting when the second person with a gun showed up to help subdue the shooter. So he never drew his weapon.
Umpqua Community College, Roseburg, Oregon
One shooter. 9 dead, 9 wounded.
Above are six shootings. There were six shooters and seven that had a weapon. The results of those six shootings are 59 dead. 93 wounded.
In each of the shootings, the motive was not about robbery. They weren’t robbing any stores, places of business or even individuals of their cash on hand. In fact, in one case, the Aurora Colorado shooting, the gunman had to pay five or six dollars for a ticket to the movie theater. In each of these shootings, it appears as though the sole purpose was to kill many people. Where is the best place to accomplish your purpose? Where there are people and where they are unlikely to have armed confrontation as they begin their shootings. Notice they aren’t choosing police stations or even gun shows.
Shooters go after the vulnerable. Who is more vulnerable than children? What gets the most attention if you’re intending to harm a large group of people? Children.
Obama’s answer seems to be to stop people from having guns and creating gun free zones where you aren’t allowed to have guns. However, Umqua Community College was a gun free zone. Even their security guard didn’t carry a weapon. Apparently, the president doesn’t realize that labeling an area a gun free zone doesn’t stop people that want to inflict the most harm on people from going to those places that are gun free zones.
At Sandy Hook school, the shooter found the children and a teacher huddled in a class room and just began shooting them. They had no weapons to shoot back with and there was nobody around that carried a gun that could stop him from killing all of those kids. At Umqua, nobody was armed. Gun free zone! So the shooter walked into a class room, told individuals to stand up one by one and asked if they were Christian. If they said yes, he shot them in the head.
There is one place that gun control actually worked, but I doubt that the president will even consider that one as reasonable. In Tucson, where Representative Gabby Giffords was shot, the shooter killed 6 and wounded 12. When he dropped his clip as he was reloading some quick thinking citizens jumped him. One person that helped subdue him actually showed up as the shooter was being subdued. Joseph Zumudio had a gun on him but he exerted gun control by not drawing his weapon when the shooter was actually losing his battle at getting free to do more shooting, and instead Zumudio helped subdue him rather than just pulling his gun and shooting the shooter. That was the only form of gun control that worked!
You are not going to stop shootings by banning guns. Not by law and not by policy. Trying to appeal to their sense of right and wrong or even to appeal to their consideration of children or respect for human life is not going to work. They are selfish most of the time, and are only looking to make a name for themselves or only thinking of lashing out and hurting someone or a large group because they are upset about something in their own lives, and they have no respect for others or their lives.
They don’t care that they are about to shoot children. They only care that they have the power because they know that the children will not shoot back. They choose a school that is designated a gun free zone because they know that they will be the only one with a gun until the police show up and they intend to die anyway.
During the 1990’s anytime the liberals wanted to get some law passed they claimed it was the right thing to do “for the children”. Or just do it “for the children”. Even out in California they are forcing parents to get vaccinations for their kids and there will be no more tolerance for those with religious or personal convictions about immunizations. So why can’t these schools protect the children from those that would do them harm? They could easily protect them by allowing their security staff to be armed. Or having weapons on hand for self defense for the adults in the school such as teachers or administrative staff to use to protect the children.
Perhaps if a shooter shows up at a school where there are arms for protection, some will die, but less would die if the people that work and attend the school at least have something to defend themselves. Perhaps a classroom full of first graders wouldn’t be massacred if someone was able to shoot back at someone that came in shooting.
Even when I was in school back in the 60’s, we had preparations for a nuclear bomb (although hiding under the desks wasn’t going to give much protection), but we also had fire drills, and tornado drills. Even in office buildings, there are signs showing you the exits in case of a fire and a sign at the elevator telling you not to use the elevator in case of a fire.
What do we do for children in a school in case of a shooting? In Sandy Hook, they hid in a closet where they were all bunched together making them easy targets for a shooter.
Dr. Ben Carson has been raked over the coals by the press lately because he suggested that if a shooter came in where he was with a group, he thought he and others would just rush the shooter. One or two may get shot, but not the entire room. That at least is a plan of action in case something happens. Lives may be lost, but more would be saved.
But the president and the rest of the liberals jump up before the bodies have even been moved and before the wounded even get to the hospital and says we need gun safety laws, which is nothing more than code words for gun control.
It only makes sense, I guess , that the president would think that gun control would work. After all, he apparently believes that the Iranians will keep their word.
You’re welcome to comment.