David Hogg Is 100 Percent Correct On His Gun Control Stance - Never Mind The Right's Haters

After the Laura Ingraham faceoff with Parkland survivor David Hogg, with the conservo guntards and snowflakes still melting down in screaming fits, it behooves us to try to get it into their thick skulls that Hogg is not against the Second Amendment.   As Hogg and fellow classmate Cameron Kasky made clear last month on HBO's Real Time, neither condemns the Second Amendment or wants it repealed.

It's not the Second Amendment that needs  condemnation or rejection but rather ignorant and juvenile interpretations  of it, i.e. which claim that one is entitled to own an AR-15 or any similar military type assault rifles under that banner. I had previously skewered this balderdash in my citation of the 2008 SC case District of Columbia vs. Heller:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/02/sorry-you-have-no-constitutional-right.html

The majority opinion was written by arch-conservative Justice  Antonin Scalia who - while upholding the right to own arms - adamantly asserted that those weapons "most useful in military service" fall outside the scope of the 2nd amendment. What exactly is there about this ruling the guntards don't get - or are they plain and simple "gun-tarded"? Do they need to be spoon fed and walked through it paragraph by paragraph, or sentence by sentence? 

A recent article in The Wall Street Journal ("Ban On Military  -Style Rifles Upheld", April 7-8, p. A3) notes that earlier SC ruling was once again upheld in a Massachusetts case whereby:

"A federal judge ruled that the Constitution offers no protection for the military style rifles used in recent mass shootings - dismissing a legal challenge by gun owners and dealers in the state."

Adding:

"Judge William G. Young's ruling followed the reasoning of an opinion last year by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a Maryland law similar to Massachusetts."

The piece also noted that Judge Young  cited the 2008 Heller case that assault style weapons fall outside the province and protection of the Second Amendment. As he wrote in the ruling:

"The AR-15 and its analogs - black, semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips and other military features - are simply not weapons within the individual constitutional right to bear arms."

The same legal cases are now also being invoked  (according to a Denver Post report two days ago) to ban all AR-15s and other assault type rifles in Boulder, Colorado-  along with bump stocks and high capacity magazines.

Seems to me if the guntards want to whine, piss and moan about gun control "infringement" on their rights, they'd do better to condemn Scalia's 2008 ruling on the unconstitutionality of  a "right" to own AR-15s in  the Heller case.   As long time conservative pundit Joe Scarborough put it two months ago, soon after the Parkland shooting:

"If you want to make the argument that the Supreme Court should protect your rights to have military style weapons, that's legitimate.  But if you say it is your God-given constitutional right to have an AR-15 that is not what the second amendment says. And it's not what Justice Scalia says or the Supreme Court says."

But the guntards ignore all reason, and all legal basis for limiting military grade weapons, preferring to scream like banshees on their blogs and spew hate at Hogg. who is merely the messenger. All Hogg is really demanding is that the same standards Antonin Scalia already upheld in D.C. vs. Heller, be implemented nationwide.

The biggest howler in all the protracted hyper reactions of the Right, is the absurd belief that Hogg  is being fed prompts and scripts by Left groups, George Soros, or Media Matters.  Again, as I noted before, because these knuckle draggers can't conceive themselves speaking articulately and knowledgeably at the age of 17, they refuse to accept David Hogg can do it. Hence, he must be part of a halfwit "conspiracy"  - as confected by the dunces -  like Steve Duncie- ...errr Doocy...on 'Fox and Friends'. (Doocy is the resident genius on "Fox and Friends" who once tried to roast marshmallows using just his bare hands and a plastic spoon, e.g.
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2010/11/19/fox-amp-friends-attempt-to-roast-marshmallows-w/173553

He also once averred that the Swedes are "pure" because they only marry other Swedes, not "other species".)

All this is part of the  disproportionate vitriol directed at Hogg, much of it driven by pure envy given Hogg's motley crew of haters wish they had  half  the brains he has. The Right's snowflakes' hate is also spurred by the kid's resolve, given  he has not been deterred by their attacks. He continues to speak and write in whatever venue allowed for the limits on military style weapons with pistol grips and high capacity magazines..

Among the Right's vitriolic haters is Virginia Lamp, aka Ginni Thomas, the wife of the dumbest, most unqualified candidate ever to be appointed to the Supreme Court (as the classic token black). Lamp wrote  on Monday - in one of the most lame brained posts ever - accompanied by images of Holocaust survivor shoes:

"To all the kids that walked out of school to protest guns. These are the shoes of Jews that gave up their firearms to Hitler. They were led into gas chambers, murdered and buried in mass graves. Pick up a history book and you’ll realize what happens when u give up freedoms and why we have them," 

Well, at least we can see she's a good I.Q. match for hubby, Clarence! She doesn't even know that Jews were allowed to keep their guns until  November 11, 1938, when the German Minister of the Interior issued the Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons.    Assuming she can count  using the fingers on one hand this was five years after Hitler was appointed to the Chancellory by Paul von Hindenburg.  Why didn't the Jews rise up in those intervening years? Huh? Speak up, Lamp and fellow cretins!

Again, NO one has any intent to  "take guns away" or make anyone "give up freedoms", as the hysterical Hogg haters  (and Parkland activist haters) like Lamp  insist. They can still stock all the other weapons they want:  shotguns, pistols,  bolt action rifles, you name it - just not ARs or their cousins (like the Bushmaster .223).  Maybe, these complainers and Hogg attackers need to go back to school and study some of the legal aspects related to the Heller case. They'd sure as hell make much more constructive  use of their free time than spamming juvenile Hogg -Hitler images!

Kudos to Hogg for taking on almost single handedly the entire vile NRA-linked  network of fools, lobbyists, hacks and yahoos who'd rather spend time creating fake images of Hogg with Hitler than learning more on specific legal cases limiting the ownership of assault- style weapons. 

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jill-richardson/78566/this-popular-pro-gun-argument-doesn-t-make-any-sense

Excerpt:

"As our nation debates gun rights vs. gun control, there’s a stupid argument that keeps resurfacing on the anti-gun control side. I’m not anti-gun, but I am anti-stupidity, so this is bugging me.

It’s the idea that because criminals, by their very nature, do not follow laws, we should not pass any laws limiting gun rights.

The thought goes that if we, say, require universal background checks, good, law-abiding people will follow that law, but criminals will still buy illegal guns. Therefore, why bother with the background checks?

This is ridiculous for several reasons.

First, that’s not how laws work. We don’t say, “Well, we could ban rape, but rapists would still do it anyway. I guess rape should be legal.”

Second, it could deter some people. There are some people who believe in following laws, or at least don’t want to get punished for breaking them. Even if the illegal gun buyers are unethical, many gun sellers will refuse to violate a law.

Third, not all criminals plan their crimes in advance. Some gun violence is done in a fit of passion.

Yes, the person premeditating murder might go get a gun in advance.

But let’s say it’s someone who would not be able to get a gun legally if there were universal background checks. Maybe they’re a convicted felon, or they have a mental illness that predisposes them to violence, or they’re a domestic abuser.

If this person flies into a murderous rage, it’s harder to get a gun quickly, because nobody can legally sell them one."

Cowardly "Bonespurs" Hides, While Courageous Kids Marched for Their Lives - An Assessment Of Saturday's Events

"WAAGH! I can't handle facing a million kids when they know I bent over for the NRA"



An "officially" estimated throng of 800,000 kids  (I estimated closer to a million) marched in Washington, D.C. Saturday as our fearless,  would -be leader Donnie Dotard, aka  "Captain Bonespurs",  hightailed it out of town to Mar-A-Lago. There we presume he could hide and perhaps ponder Stormy Daniels dishing on him in a 60 Minutes segment. .So as the students gathered, Trump was whisked by motorcade to his West Palm Beach golf club where he later tweeted support for “the victims of the horrible attack in France yesterday” (sic).  But the imp never once mentioned the rallies on Twitter.

Of course, this was a deliberate, trademark (and transparent)  Trump dodge : an expedient excuse to avoid giving any acknowledgement or respect to the student marchers in D.C. -   given he'd long since bent over for the NRA. This after a meeting in the White House when he was all bravado about "not being afraid of the NRA".  As for the tweet to "support the victims in France" let's get real. This degenerate filth cares no more about them than he cared about the dead Syrian kids from a toxic gas attack last year. He merely used it to posture-  releasing a benign cruise missile attack on a Syrian base - to impress his guest, China's President Xi at Mar-a-Lago. But this is what  he knows best how to do, just as he's used the French attack as an excuse to avoid mentioning the 'March For Our Lives.'

The NRA also predictably stayed silent  (except for a pair of burps by resident hacks on NRA-TV, see below) on the student presence and passionate speeches, prompting MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews to refer to it as their typical M.O.  "They wait until all the activity has died down and then show up a few weeks later when all is quiet."   He asked a  Parkland student nearby how one might "flush them out" in real time, but the student noted the only solution is to vote out their lackeys and puppets.

 Outside the FBI headquarters in Washington, about 30  misguided gun-rights supporters staged a 'counter-demonstration" standing quietly with signs such as ‘"Armed victims live longer” and ‘Stop violating civil rights’.  Both of which are a crock  Armed victims would be just as dead going up against an active shooter with an AR-15  unless they also had ARs, and preferably SWAT training.  Civil rights aren't being violated either. No one has any intention of taking anyone's rightfully allowed, and owned guns away, only getting rid of military style weapons which aren't protected by the 2nd amendment anyway, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/02/sorry-you-have-no-constitutional-right.html


In one of the first speeches, Marjory Stoneman Douglas senior Delaney Tarr told the crowd of the students’ demands, including background checks and a ban on assault weapons.

“When you give us an inch, that bump stocks ban, we will take a mile. We are not here for breadcrumbs, we are here to lead.”

Parkland student Jordan Khayyami, 15, said: “I think that legislatures should be aware that the next generation of voters is right in front of them so if they don’t want to promote change then we will vote for change.”

And give the student march organizers due credit for setting up voter registration booths, to prepare as many 18-year olds and others eligible to vote this year as possible.

The scenes of thousands of students on the streets was overwhelming to many of the victims of gun violence who attended . Mark Barden, whose seven-year-old son Daniel was one of the 20 children murdered at Sandy Hook in 2012, told a reporter from the UK Gaurdian:

“I did not expect this. I’m still astounded,. To me, it looks like our entire nation is finally on board, on the right side of this issue. It’s so inspiring and encouraging and overwhelming, and beautiful to me.”

Barden has spent five years pushing for stricter gun control laws, first with the support of Barack Obama’s White House, then continuing when  gun control again dropped off the national agenda.

At the same time in New York, Paul McCartney stood in solidarity with marchers in Central Park and referred to fellow Beatle John Lennon’s fatal shooting outside his apartment building in 1980.  He told CNN:

 “One of my best friends was killed by gun violence right around here, so it’s important to me not just to march today but to take action tomorrow and to have these people to have their voices heard,"

Meanwhile, the pundits at FOX News were complaining that one of the Parkland parents,  Andrew  "I'm really pissed!" Pollack, had not been invited to speak to the throng on Saturday. Pollack, the father of  one of the victims (Meadow),  had broken off with the student activist contingent with his own ideas (voiced at a WH meet with Trump a month ago) about school security. In the CBS documentary '39 Days'  on the evolution of the  #Never Again movement, Pollack said  that while he wished the students "the best" he believed they were "wasting their  time" with gun control. This is incredibly defeatist given the movement has already played a major role in getting the first significant gun legislation passed in Florida in 20 years, enticing Oregon and Rhode Island to tighten gun restrictions, getting giant retailers like Dick's Sporting Goods to stop selling assault type rifles and long time corporate partners ending their relationships with the NRA.

The movement obviously hasn't yet achieved its primary goal - a ban on all military- style weapons- but give them time. They are playing the long game which Pollack ought to appreciate.

What then is Andrew Pollack's solution? He prefers outfitting schools like security fortresses or airports,  with special electrified gates, metal detectors, and so on  - which is plain nuts.

As one of the most passionate student speakers, Edna Chavez, 17, from Manual Arts high school in Los Angeles, declared:

"Security systems and electric barricades won't work! Metal detectors won't work! These will just criminalize students!"

She observed it will be mainly the "black and brown skinned students" singled out. Thus, it was a good idea not to  have Pollack speak, which would basically dilute and divide the message. I also believe he wouldn't want to speak because he grasped it would be like a wrong note sounding in a symphony. When he comes around, as I believe he eventually will, then he can put in his two cents and join Delaney Tarr, David Hogg, Cameron Kasky, Emma  Gonzalez et al in a righteous movement that has a hell of a lot more chance succeeding than turning all our public schools into gated, high security "Super Max" prisons. (Bear in mind when you lock out bad guys you also lock in good kids.)

Then there is the other clueless NRA tool making the talk show rounds on behalf of the gunrunners and 2nd amendment phonies. That would be Kyle Kashuv, e.g.

Who actually tweeted the following ding on his fellow Parkland  students:

No one's feelings are hurt by a group of people who Don't have a basic understanding of US case law and are fighting to get existing laws passed.

Which is total balderdash.

In fact it's Kashuv who lacks a basic understanding of U.S. case law pertaining to the 2nd amendment given he is blissfully unaware there is NO  "existing law" that currently bans military grade weapons like the AR-15 which is one of the provisions his classmates want passed.

Nor is he aware of the D..C. vs. Heller  Supreme Court decision that clearly does not include ownership of  such weapons as a  2nd amendment right, see e.g. the previous link.

As conservative Joe Scarborough put it regarding those unaware of the Heller ruling:

Go back and read Heller, 2008, what Scalia and the Supreme Court said. You're right, you can have handguns in your home, and shotguns to protect your family. But the court has allowed states  - like Maryland (2017)  to ban assault style weapons.  They let this and other laws stand   - without challenge - as constitutional ."

Adding:

If you want to make the argument that the Supreme Court should protect your rights to have military style weapons, that's legitimate.  But if you say it is your God-given constitutional right to have an AR-15 that is not what the second amendment says. And it's not what Justice Scalia says or the Supreme Court says.

Of course, Janice has a more succinct take: "He's not articulate! He just knows how to parrot what his parents told him about guns and the NRA. Big deal!"   Ouch!

Clearly, Kashuv's classmates are vastly more in tune with the actual 2nd amendment and its limits than he is. (Which is also why I suggest here the kids also demand: a) stricter gun licensing laws such as Massachusetts, which require not only passing a state -approved gun safety course first, but also being licensed - as one would if getting a car - as well as fingerprinted, and b) abolition of all state "concealed carry" laws -  which new research - reported in the latest TIME with Parkland kids on the cover-  see 13- 15 percent increased homicides within 10 years of being enacted.)

 As for Kashuv's latest prominence, hey, it was inevitable!  He realized quickly that his contrarian and conservative stance is a terrific way to grab center stage on gun issues - separating himself relative to the Parkland activists. This gets him the limelight on sundry cable shows, and even a special one- on -one with Trump in the Oval Office. Oh yeah, and with Melania too. ("Gee, she was just so maternal!") After all,  the mostly clueless media is clearly eager for "balance" and here's a willing tool...errr...kid, to provide it. What's not to like? Plus he's become as big a "hero" to the righties as Blaine Gaskill.

 Hell, the kid's  singular PR "pro-gun" profile especially  works if  one day he might be looking to replace Dana Loesch as the main voice for the biggest gun lobby in the world. Just sayin'.

Loesch herself reprised her role as the heartless harpy  (as before in the CNN town hall)  when she insisted - on NRA -TV   - that the marching students were willing pawns for a "PR stunt". Well, if anyone knows PR stunts it is certainly "the beet juice lady", and maybe she could teach some of her tactics to Kashuv as her willing understudy.

Then there was the NRA's token black man, also appearing on NRA-TV,  who goes under the pseudonym, "Colion Noir" (real name: Collins Iyare Idehen Jr.) He thought he was brilliant by lashing the Parkland kids as hypocrites, e.g.:

"They hate machines that cause death except, hold on, you ain't never gonna take their cars away."

A totally imbecilic accusation that mixes apples and oranges given that cars are machines designed expressly for transport that may (in the case of accidents) incidentally result in death. Whereas military grade rifles like the AR-15 are specifically designed for mass death -- which is why they were once considered as replacements for the M-16 in Vietnam. (The M-16, as shown in the Ken Burns documentary on the Vietnam War, often jammed.)

Our "brilliant" TV star Collins also failed to note that - according to the Harvard School of Public Health - it's easier to get an AR-15 than to get a license to drive a car.

"Noir" further babbled over the NRA's  airwaves:

"To all the kids from Parkland getting ready to use your first amendment rights to attack everyone else's second amendment rights at your march..."

Forgetting that the kids from Parkland were not attacking anyone's "second amendment rights". They were proposing reasonable curbs using universal background checks - which 90 percent of Americans support, limiting high capacity magazines, and banning military -grade rifles like the AR-15 which are NOT protected under the 2nd amendment, again by way of the D.C. vs. Heller SC ruling. 

He also went on to yap:

"I wish a hero like Blaine Gaskill had been at Marjory Douglas High School last month because your classmates would still be alive. And no one would know your names because the media would have utterly ignored your story."

Which is total rubbish that I already skewered in  a prior post:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/03/sorry-nra-guntards-md-school-shooting.html

In fact, the most likely outcome - had Gaskill tried the same tactic at Stoneman Douglas - is that even more kids would have been killed, most likely as collateral damage from misfires out of Gaskill's gun. There's also a high probability Gaskill himself would have ended up a statistic.

As for Andrew Pollack, I don't believe he's actually a right wing gun zealot,(though he's appeared with Kyle Kashuv on a number of cable shows) just a desperate  father seeking solutions.  I just hope he eventually grasps that converting each school into a mini-Supermax is not a solution. It never will be, any more than arming teachers. See e.g.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/kali-holloway/77917/is-the-armed-teacher-debate-americas-lowest-stupidest-media-moment


Even as scenes of the student march played out, The Denver Post Saturday edition featured two articles of note including one that cited these AP poll results (p. 10 A):

- 7 in 10 Americans want a nationwide ban on bump stocks

- 6 in 10 Americans demand a nationwide ban on Ar-15 style rifles

The same piece quoted a 50 year old Miramar FL gun owner, John Karnosh, who expressed dismay so little change has come about since Columbine, adding (ibid.):

"I see what these kids are doing. If anyone can drive a movement for change, these kids will do it."

One page later, there appeared an article on CDC findings pertaining to gun deaths, in which we learned:

- 26,000 deaths of children (under the age of 18) killed by guns from 1999- 2016

- Among the world's wealthy nations the U.S. accounts for 91 percent of all firearm deaths of children under age 15

- Factor in as well, 1, 678 children under 5 years of age killed between 1999- 2016

- The preceding include 184 infants, under one year old,  223 1-year olds, and 294 two year olds.

As Maryland student Matt Post put in an interview on 'AM Joy' yesterday morning:

"Is your love of these guns really worth all the carnage they've caused?"

 There is something seriously wrong with any nation bearing these stats. It leads me to quote a former soldier (Army sergeant)  who had a letter published in the local Indie paper after the Parkland massacre. Paraphrasing his words:

"Okay, let's say the military-  style weapons are not the cause of the mass shootings. But we have to at least admit they are the means.  So let's deal with controlling the means right now and we will deal with the cause later."

In other words, cease the endless back and forth about  the 2nd amendment  - when it emphatically excludes owning military style rifles as a special right.  So, we ban these weapons like the UK did after the Dunblane (Scotland)  massacre, and Australia did after their Port Arthur massacre. (Note: it is true these weapons are responsible for only 5 percent of all homicides, but given each mass murder event is the de facto equivalent of a terror attack - and indeed instills terror - it is not overreach to ban these rifles.)

It's time this nation take similar steps now. The previous stats cited are a blight not only on our history but on our people and their understanding of the Second Amendment and the nature of rights.  Which entail responsibilities as well as the exercise of limited rights.

I suspect it also means the gunnies cease "wearing their guns on their sleeves" to use Denver Post editor Chuck Plunkett's phrase from his column yesterday.  What Plunkett was arguing for is altering one's identity in the use of guns - especially long rifles - to what it was a generation ago, i.e.

"If you went hunting you were praised for how few rounds you used to bring down a wild turkey, not how many."

Indeed. And if you used more you'd be encouraged to take up a different pastime.  But as he also notes, in today's warped cultural environment everything is based on excess  and worse for 2nd amendment absolutists this excess becomes a matter of identity, e.g.

"Gun ownership has become a religion, it's in our faces everywhere, on hats, T-shirts, bumper stickers, flags and social media profiles."

This is what the student movement's leaders must grasp: they are facing not only recalcitrant politicians - who btw are more terrified of the voting power of NRA members than the money they receive or don't- but also those afflicted with the gun identity syndrome.

The students have to figure out how to break that tribal identity connection to guns, especially the military assault variety. One recent letter writer to The Colorado Springs Independent  proposed the following quirky solution predicated on diluting the hyper-macho B.S. associated with gun ownership, especially of assault weapons:

https://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/reader-a-proposal-to-stem-gun-violence-without-taking-away-anyones-second-amendment-rights/Content?oid=10816601


Somehow, I don't believe coloring all these rifles pink will quite work. Anyway these kids are energized and organizing a call for Town Halls on April 7, as well as another mass walkout on April 20th and an ongoing voter registration campaign.  

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gary-leupp/78329/the-children-s-crusade-against-early-death-by-school-shootings

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/henry-giroux/78344/education-as-a-weapon-of-struggle-rethinking-the-parkland-uprising-in-the-age-of-mass-violence

Sorry, NRA Guntards, the MD School Shooting Outcome Doesn't Prove More Guns Are Needed in Schools

Blaine Gaskill - the guntards' current "hero" for his role in stopping the shooter at a  MD high school. But we still don't know if either of the wounded students was hit by a round from his weapon.

Well, I predicted it wouldn't be three days before the Right wing gunnies and guntards - who favor stocking guns with teachers - would be shooting off their yaps at the successful killing of an active shooter at a Maryland high school -- and by a school resource officer (Blaine Gaskill). In this way they figured they'd be able to show -  Hey, see. it works!  I.e. that an official deputy with a gun can take down an active shooter, and hence put Scott Peterson  (the deputy at Stoneman Douglas) to shame. This is given Peterson did not go inside Bldg. 12 where Nikolas Cruz was firing dozens of rounds with his AR- 15.

Just a few things off about this cozy, expedient little picture:

First, let's try to get our gunny friends to calm down long enough to concede there's a huge difference in the training of  Gaskill vs. Parkland's Peterson. That is, Gaskill was a SWAT-trained officer in the St. Mary's County Sheriff's Office, which makes a world of difference in terms of skill and  shooting ability. That was an advantage Peterson didn't have. Oh, and Gaskill had also been in armed confrontations before, a little fact the breathless gun zealots omit.

Second, there's a little bitty difference in weapons: the perp in the MD  incident had a Glock 9 mm which is not the same as an AR -15 military style rifle.  The rounds from a Glock, 9 mm, travel at much less the speed of the AR-15 (which is 2800 ft/sec) and the firing rate is roughly half that of the AR. Also, the Glock 9 mm  is far more limited in magazine capacity (compared to the AR) - giving a school officer at least half a chance to succeed in a "shoot out". That and the fact Rollins was evidently firing at one student - instead of dozens- gave Gaskill an opening. One he'd not have had facing an AR-15 spraying rounds all over and taking off limbs, ears, heads..

Third,  the perp  (Austin Rollins) Gaskill faced was not decked out in body armor as was the Parkland shooter, Nikolas Cruz.

I submit these differences totally destroy the right wing gun nuts' case that Gaskill would have done better at stopping the  Parkland FL killer, though there is a small possibility one round might have nicked Cruz somewhere. Big deal. My bet, Gaskill would still have ended up dead man walking and likely with lots more student collateral deaths too.  This highlights the core problem of gunnies and guntards: the prefrontal cortices of their brains simply aren't large enough to realistically project an AR- 15  active shooter scenario. In other words, they inhabit gun la-la land thanks to deficient mental capacity - or they're totally dishonest.

As we've since learned,  Gaskill confronted the perp (Austin Wyatt Rollins),  as students and teachers scrambled for cover. Both Gaskill and Rollins fired their weapons, with Rollins fatally wounded. (Gaskill was not injured)

As of this writing, investigators were still reviewing video and taking testimony to determine exactly what happened in the chaotic exchange that sent two students — a girl, 16, and a boy, 14 — to the hospital with injuries. Officials could not say who shot the boy or whether the attacker was killed by Gaskill or shot himself with the Glock semiautomatic.

IN other words, we have a bunch of loose ends and it's way too early for guntard cheerleaders to be proclaiming victory in the ongoing PR battle over rational gun control or the meme that Gaskill singlehandedly brought down the bad guy - without hurting anyone else..

But one thing I will guarantee:  there would have been a lot more blood, guts and chaos had he attempted this bravado with Nikolas Cruz - decked in body armor and firing an AR- 15 at Stoneman Douglas High on Feb. 14th.. For one thing, he'd have faced up to 30 rounds fired per minute at ear-piercing decibels with heads shattered along with limbs.   I seriously doubt Gaskill would have got one shot off far less two, without killing students in his firing line or being killed himself. But see, I am realistic unlike the NRA groupies who buy into Elmer Fudd cartoons.

I repeat again - hoping this time the guntards process it (but doubt they will)-   there is no form of training  that replicates the experience of going up against a real, military style assault weapon that has already blown off the faces, arms, and legs of kids who were alive just minutes ago. There is no freaking training that duplicates the emotional, psychological experience that a teacher (or ordinary school resource officer)  would encounter in an actual bloodbath scenario that is rapidly unfolding and in which the shooter has every advantage with his assault rifle.

And any guntard who claims differently is either on hallucinogenic drugs, or suffering from a schizophrenic disorder in which fantasies are deemed realities, or is a fucking liar.

 Even a Glock 9mm would be no match against an AR-15, and if we are on the sane side, we should not look forward to any  "grudge match"  between a body armor clad, AR 15 wielding active shooter and a single armed deputy. My bet would be that it is no contest.

Could a well -trained teacher (or school resource officer) armed with only a handgun bring down the bad guy with an AR-15?  Uh, yeah, IF..... the time is available to stand there and aim his-her handgun at the shooter.....

AND.... the shooter obliges by standing there frozen like a fucking deer in the headlights,  allowing the teacher or officer to do it.   In addition, the shooter - even if standing still as a statue - would have to further  cooperate by deciding not to fire his assault weapon at the officer with the handgun.

Pause now, collect your breath, and seriously tell me how you rate the probabilities for any of these to materialize.  Let's also add for completeness, that even if all these conditions are met, the teacher-officer would have to have a clear firing line - no students in the intervening space.  Ideally, this would have to take place outside in a hallway, not inside a classroom where any number of students could become collateral damage. The incident in St. Mary's County, MD didn't conform to that, given we still don't know whether either of the injured students were struck by Gaskill.  (The guntarded will totally deny if, of course, even before the evidence is in.)

Of course, no surprise that faced with a PR blitz by the Parkland students the Twitter feed of NRA- TV, an arm of the National Rifle Association, hailed Gaskill as proof of the group’s assertion that armed guards — or teachers — are a better response to school shootings than gun control. Again, proving the NRA and its groupies either are deficient in mental capacity - e.g. to realistically project an AR-15 mass shooting scenario, or dishonest.

Take away the B.S. and fulsome hype and all the St. Mary's incident really shows is that IF there is a SWAT -trained officer on the premises, and IF he is facing a perp with NO body armor, and bearing only a Glock 9mm handgun, he may be lucky enough to get in a kill shot . Though we still are not sure if that really happened or Rollins killed himself. Nor are we sure one of the two students injured wasn't hit by a ricochet  from Gaskill's gun.  And this is all despite the fact that Gaskill had successfully defused encounters with armed suspects before.

Most teachers as well as school resource officers would have been at a monumental disadvantage, since they'd have lacked the SWAT training of Gaskill or his prior experience in confronting armed perps.

In other words luck - and yes, some measure of skill and training-  decidedly played a role. But it is stupid beyond belief to think this could be easily replicated - especially against a shooter in body armor and firing an AR 15  at twice the rate of a Glock. 

Backing me up on my take that the St. Mary's County HS approach is hardly a one-size-fits-all answer to the active shooter gun crisis, is John Jay College of Criminal Justice Prof. Eugene O’Donnell, a former NYPD cop.  For one thing, O’Donnell said, the shooter wasn’t toting an assault rifle like the gunman who killed 17 students and teachers in the FL rampage in February. Also,  Rollins appeared to have been targeting a single student, although another classmate was shot,. (Though that may have been by a ricochet from Gaskill's gun)

As O'Donnell added (and this needs to be processed by the guntards):

"Don’t confuse run-of-the-mill incidents for mass shootings. It’s not the same. A gun in school could cause more harm than good. People are trying to find a case that fits their perspective. That’s not good.'

Indeed, it isn't good. O’Donnell added that Gaskill’s SWAT training — and willingness to engage the shooter — played a big role in the outcome. But look, it was also true that his SWAT training - which most teachers and school resource officers wouldn't have-  was precisely the factor that gave him the confidence (hence willingness) to engage the shooter. But it might very well have cost him his life, as well as students' lives, had he tried the same against the AR-15 firing, body armor clad Nikolas Cruz.

What we need is for the guntards to stop and think rationally and realistically instead of running off their mouths by entertaining and circulating fantasy memes of how a lone officer or teacher could take down an active shooter in body armor, firing an AR.

But don't hold your breath!

See also Kali Holloway's excellent blog post  ('The Armed Teacher Debate, America's Stupidest Moment') from smirking chimp:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/kali-holloway/77917/is-the-armed-teacher-debate-americas-lowest-stupidest-media-moment

Excerpt:

Numerous educators have mishandled guns and shot themselves, often while classes are in session, over the last few years. That includes the Idaho State University chemistry professor who shot himself in the foot, the Utah elementary school teacher who shot herself in the leg and the Long Island University professor (and ex-cop) who also shot himself in the leg. An Atlanta high school teacher intentionally shot himself in the face last year, and since studies show the presence of a gun increases the chances of suicide, that’s something to consider before  you start suggesting schools stockpile weapons.

'But these teachers will be trained—we’ll just take the money out of children’s health insurance or something', some partisan hack is yelling at this very moment. That will ensure they’ll avoid those kinds of sloppy mistakes! First of all, an NRA employee accidentally shot himself at the group’s headquarters last year, and once you get past the staggering irony of the story, you note that training is no guarantee against mistakes

Stoneman Douglas Students Make Big Impression On HBO's Real Time

David Hogg, left, and Cameron Kasky, take Bill Maher's questions on 'Real Time' Friday night.

"The students of Parkland are like veterans coming home from the bloody front of the N.R.A.’s de facto war on children. They’ve seen their friends, teachers and coaches gunned down in the halls. To them, powerful Washington lobbyists and United States senators suddenly look like what they are: cheesy TV spokesmodels for murder weapons. It has been inspiring and thrilling to watch furious, cleareyed teenagers shame and vilify gutless politicians and soul-dead lobbyists for their complicity in the murders of their friends. Last week Wayne LaPierre was reduced to gibbering like Gen. Jack D. Ripper in “Dr. Strangelove” about a “socialist” takeover and “hardening” our schools. You could see the whites all around his irises. That look is fear."  - Tim Kreider in NY Times Op-Ed (March 2)

Bill Maher's Real Time, Friday night, was the setting for the appearance of two Marjory Stoneman Douglas students, David Hogg and Cameron Kasky. Even as the Right's trolls continued to cast aspersions on them as  "crisis actors" (too dumb to actually check the school's rolls), the pair again displayed their media savvy in the opening interview with host Bill Maher.

Maher, after the first few responses, was so impressed that he told Hogg and classmate Cameron Kasky:

“I honestly thought kids were a lot stupider.  You’ve really given me faith that the kids today are actually very bright, way brighter than we were.”

Oh yeah, and way brighter than the Right's naysayers will ever be, because that lot can't fancy anyone brighter than themselves at that age.   Kasky himself also lambasted critics who dismiss the students because of their youth.

“We’ve seen our friends text their parents goodbye. We are the experts.”

Regarding the conspiracy slander claiming the Parkland students are actors, well true, but not in the way the wingnuts believe.  In other words some of the students are part of the school's Drama Club and enjoy putting on plays. As Kasky told Maher:

“I’m in Spring Awakening at Parkland Performing Arts Center. Great show.”

And  Maher's praise  was before Hogg revealed that he hung up on the White House last week, angered that Trump refused to attend CNN’s town hall meeting with survivors of the February 14 mass shooting that left 17 students dead at their high school.


Said Hogg of his White House phone call (they called him, as he emphasized to Maher):

“I ended on this message: 'We don’t need to listen to President Trump, Present Trump needs to listen to the screams of the children and screams of this nation.”

Wow! You have to give this kid credit for cojones as well as composure and media savvy (though the Right wingers never will, preferring to slam these kids for "not respecting their elders". )

Maher then told the students about their impact on the nation’s gun reform debate, averring:

“We have never seen change like this,”

The Parkland FL students – co-founders of the student advocacy group Never Again MSD – are among the organizers of nationwide marches and the March for Our Lives rally outside the White House on March 24. What many may not know is that the event has drawn considerable support from Hollywood, with George and Amal Clooney, Eli Broad, Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw and Jeffrey and Marilyn Katzenberg each pledging donations of at least $500,000.

Asked by Maher about the goal of the rally, Kasky said:

 “We want Americans to stop being afraid of demanding our politicians to take action. They work for us, we don’t work for them and the march is us coming out and saying to our employees ‘You guys suck at your job.’ “


Interestingly,  neither Hogg nor Kasky would condemn the Second Amendment, even at Maher’s urging- but then they shouldn't have had to. It's not the Second Amendment that needs  condemnation but rather juvenile, ignorant interpretations  of it, i.e. which claim that one is entitled to own an AR-15 or any similar military type assault rifles under that banner. I had previously taken this balderdash down in my citation of the case District of Columbia vs. Heller, where Antonin Scalia delivered the majority opinion, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/02/sorry-you-have-no-constitutional-right.html

Reinforcing this limited 2nd amendment take was a recent NY Post essay by a former army infantryman, Ralph Peters, who wrote:

"I believe on moral, practical and constitutional grounds that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or semiautomatic weapon that can be easily modified for automatic effects. These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They're not used for hunting unless you want to destroy the animal's meat. They're also lousy for target shooting. But they're excellent tools for mass murder. No one has the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder."

This view was, of course, that invoked by Antonin Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in the Heller case. It was also cited by WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan in her own piece (Mar. 3-4, p. A13) where she asserted:

"We have an estimated 300 million guns in America. An estimated 50 million of our households keep them. For now that is enough, even for whatever terrible day comes. Stop selling military weapons in America.. Just stop.  Revisit the issne in five years. See what happens."

What she is proposing is a moratorium- style experiment in national gun policy. In other words, cease all purchases of such weapons for a time and see what the effects are.  But first make sure the  N.R.A.-backed Dickey Amendment, -  which was passed in 1996 - is neutralized so the CDC can investigate gun death stats objectively  over the 5 years.  Then, if there is a true statistically significant reduction in killings from military style weapons, we can ban them..

What Noonan got wrong was her expectation Dumpster Donnie was a serious actor when he met with a bipartisan group about gun control and promised things would change, e.g.

"He treated the mass shooting like a crisis, not a tragedy."

But as we've seen, he went running for a change in diapers after NRA honcho Chris Cox talked him down - or rather - back under the NRA's thumb.  Yeppers, this disgusting drooling turd - who couldn't even stand up to an NRA blood money purveyor and who had earlier bragged he'd have faced the AR-15 shooter at Stoneman Douglas  "even without a weapon".  In a pig's eye.,  especially if he couldn't even handle an unarmed NRA flack
.
But even Noonan half expected Doturd would change his stance when she wrote:

"His presentation were undisciplined, scatty....And as always the question is whether he meant any of it. His opinions rest on impulses. He likes to say words. You never know which you can believe."

Actually, you can pretty well assume 100 percent of what he says is wrong, outright lies or bonkers and be secure.  To fix ideas, if he said a North Korean attack was coming tomorrow I wouldn't believe it. Not one word! As   NY Times writer Charles Blow ('The Chaos President', March 3) put it:

"Believing anything Trump says is a recipe for a headache and heartache."

Adding  this explanation of why all his "ideas"   come a cropper:

"I believe that this chaos is the perpetual result of the absolute incompetence and idiocy of a preening philistine who has faked his way through life pretending that he knows more than he does and is tougher than he is.....He wants so desperately to be right that he says whatever his audience — whether that be a small group or a filled arena, whether that be members of Congress or fans at a rally — want to hear and will respond to..  This is how you can get wildly vacillating positions and bold, empty promises in bipartisan meetings with the man — whether those meetings are about addressing DACA and immigration or about addressing gun control after the school shooting in Florida.."

And all this occurs as this degenerate stirs up even more chaos with his twitter threats of trade war and steel tariffs. Now aimed at Canada and Mexico, as if he is pointing a gun to those nations' heads re: a new NAFTA deal.  Be advised, our northern and southern neighbors, we have a psychotic at the helm - now clearly trying to deflect attention as the Mueller noose tightens around his orange neck.

As for the Parkland students, their main job right now is to: 1) understand they are going to have to play the "long game" in changing gun laws in this regressive nation, and 2) learn much more on the limits of second amendment rights especially as they pertain to military style rifles (whether one uses the controversial term "assault" or not).  They can start with the 2008 Supreme Court case of District of Columbia vs. Heller in which Justice Antonin Scalia clearly set the limits on rights to own AR-15 and similar weapons.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/miles-mogulescu/77940/gun-control-legislation-is-constitutional

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/henry-giroux/78018/killing-children-in-the-age-of-disposability-the-parkland-shooting-was-about-more-than-gun-violence

"Guns don't kill people"? Countering The Rationalizations and Memes Employed By The NRA

"This weapon, the AR-15, was actually the weapon the military was trying to use - instead of the M 16- in Vietnam, because it was more lethal." - Joe Scarborough yesterday morning

Even as one hundred activist students - survivors of the Valentine's Day massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High -  march to the Florida state capitol today, they have to know they will be confronting hard- headed lawmakers. Especially on the Reepo side, i.e. those who sold out their brains long ago to the NRA for a few campaign bucks.  The kids, part of the newly activated #NeverAgain movement, with allies across the nation, will have to be able to counter the specious arguments that will be hurled back at them.

This begs the question of why, apart from campaign largesse, it is so difficult to change minds. Well, one reason is the penchant of the NRA to trot out  glib rationalizations and facile arguments,  with which it seeds the susceptible  brains of so many.

How effective are these canards and rationalizations? A poll reported this morning on CBS shows that the nation is nearly evenly divided on an assault weapons ban - among the few things that would actually work to limit mass shootings - ask Australia!   The poll showed only 50 percent support such a ban and 46 percent oppose. WHY do so many oppose it? I submit because they are victims of one or more NRA mind viruses that have infected their brains and spread by the minions of the NRA.

For example: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Which is one of the most popular because it catches so many would-be opponents off guard. They are then left to flap gums, i.e. "B-b-but y-you can't say that!!"  As opposed to offering a powerful retort,  for example:

"But if you had taken that AR-15 out of that kid's hands and replaced it with just a kitchen knife would he have still killed so many?"  In other words, the weapon used also factors in, just as the use of an accelerant by an arsonist to burn down an apartment bldg. That accelerant - like the AR-15 or any other assault weapon -dramatically increases the body count. This isn't rocket science and you don't need a Mensa level IQ to get it.

This tack effectively puts  them on the defensive. Of course, then the usual reply - again thanks to the NRA - is: "So what?  You now want to ban all kitchen knives too?"

NOOOOOO... But you fail to process that there is a logical difference between a prosaic, everyday implement that can sometimes be used as a weapon, and a military style rifle that is specifically designed to kill. In this case, a rifle that was once earmarked for possible use in Vietnam to make killing easier than the older model M16.  In other words, Roscoe, how many mass killings have been done by knives? It is easy to mock the notion of "knife laws" but when you hold their feet (and brains) to the fire on a logical basis they are the ones usually spluttering.  

Or maybe not. CBS interviewer John Blackstone tried to do that with the couple ( James and Kimberly Snead)  that took  in  Nikolas Cruz, even confronting them about allowing him to have a case of "five or six guns"  including the AR-15 assault rifle. The guy - a total dope - was nonchalant,  telling Blackstone when asked about this, "It was his right".  His right?! A nineteen year old twerp whose brain is still forming? So these Sneads  also appear to be brain- jacked idiots who perhaps had imbibed too much NRA hog swill.   Confirmation? When Blackstone asked James Snead  if he felt differently about it now after the massacre, he replied, "No, not at all." In other words,  this guntard would let another kid into his home to have his own gun case too. It is morons like this that confirm again the need for parental (or guardianship) licensing tests, and  blacken this country's name and make us all look like damned fools.

It was two days ago that I came across another favorite NRA trope that I've seen in various guises. It appeared on my Facebook home page, and it clearly showed why banning assault weapons is often made to appear ridiculous. The canard was compliments of a nephew who is part of my "Friends" group. It went like this:

"A DUI driver gets rightly blamed and prosecuted for killing 3 people in a crash he caused. A guy shoots up 17 kids with an assault rifle -  and the rifle gets the blame.  Typical liberal logic."


Most of us have to admit this "reasoning"  is mind blowing in its simplicity and precisely for that reason is dangerous, because it can lull those without critical thinking skills to accept it.  This is what I call an example of sophistry often employed by those who'd seek to defend the purchase and ownership of a weapon which - as Joe Scarborough notes at the top - was actually considered for use in Vietnam because of its lethality. In other words, its staunch defenders are full tilt embracing the right to own and operate a weapon that is specifically dedicated to slaughter the enemy in a war theater.

Now, let's take step back and process merely what the old fashioned M 16 could do as reflected in this image after a whole village was wiped out by Lt. William Calley's platoon in the Mai Lai massacre:
















Dozens of men, women and children were slain in that rogue exercise engineered by the war criminal Calley and it is surely difficult to process how a more lethal scenario could emerge. But - if the AR- 15 had been used instead it would have snuffed out  the few surviving villagers.. Yet that weapon - at least ownership of it - is what the assault weapons' folks defend.  WHY?

Let's go back to the specious argument posted on Facebook and see why it is specious.  Consider the case of the DUI - such as occurred in Denver barely a month ago-  when three members of a family were wiped out of existence by that inebriated driver. He was surely to blame as his blood alcohol level was later found to be 0.3. There is no issue on who was to blame, and the car was merely the instrument for the killing. However, the extent of the death was self limiting by the capacity of the car.

In the case of an AR-15 (or other assault rifle) there is no self limiting factor - and a gunman (like Nikolas Cruz) could move at will - say floor to floor, room to room- slaughtering as many as his trigger finger speed and aim permit.  Now, this is crucial  - the ability to do that is a function primarily of the weapon,  not just the mobility of the gunman. Again, leave him with just his "fists" - as my AR-15 owner pal put two days ago, i.e. "more people are killed with fists than guns" - and I promise you 17 do not die.

Hence, the AR-15  example is qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from the DUI deaths.  For sure, the gunman is also to blame - but his choice of instrument must also be factored in, to the extent of contributing to the body count. In other words, it's the combination of shooter and weapon that's most important. Or to use the words of journalist Hava Leipzig Holzhauer, writing in the Broward Sun-Sentinel:

"This combination is a threat to our way of life in America."

As I posted in a response comment, take the AR-15 out of Cruz's hands and substitute a knife -  whatever one you  choose- and 17 don't lose their lives. You can take that to the bank. What has been done is to replace one of the most lethal weapons with a much less lethal one. In the first case, the weapon,  a cousin to the M16, is expressly designed to kill and do so with maximal efficiency.  Moreover, it is expressly designed to kill people, not hunt prey. As blogger David Lindorff put it:

"An AR-15 is not a hunting weapon. In fact there’s a reason it’s called an “assault rifle.” As a hunter, unless you’re an atrocious shot and are hunting random flocks of small birds, you certainly don’t need to be able to fire powerful ammunition of two bullets per second — the rate at which experts say an ordinary person could be able to pull the trigger."

By contrast, the knife  -- no matter how sharp or large- must usually be wielded by an assailant in an up close and personal manner. It isn't like taking aim from 20 or more feet away and dispatching victims with the touch of a trigger.  To kill seventeen people  even in the same room - the assailant would have to work demonically, stabbing from one to the other, and there is no assurance any given slash would be a fatal one  say like an  AR-15 bullet fired into a chest.  Even if it took only 3 seconds per stab, this  is much longer than firing 2 rounds per second. And you can't assume the people will just stand there like dummies and let you do them in, oh no. They will react and more than likely several will gang up to take the assailant down

This is the first point that the assault rifle lovers must be forced to admit, that it is far more difficult to kill with a knife than an assault weapon. Now, the FLA AR-15 owner in his response cited a stat where he said: "you're more than twice as likely to be killed from being kicked or punched than being shot".

Which merely goes to show how statistics can be used to disguise the nature of a threat if not carefully considered.   What was my retort? Well, I said I would gladly face any flying fists or feet rather than an AR-15 (or AK 47) any day. If he believed he'd sway me to accepting that owning an AR-15 was ok because I'd more likely get offed by a latter day Bruce Lee with a karate kick, he was mistaken.

His argument actually derived from then Texas AG  Greg Abbott's 2013 Facebook post. But that post did not include homicides the FBI attributed to handguns (6,220), firearms whose type was not stated (1,587) and "other guns" (97). Those numbers mean handguns were used in 72 percent of all firearm murders in 2011 and slightly under half of all murders using any kind of weapon that year.

These sort of stats have also been used by assault rifle defenders to argue that the risk of being shot  by an assault rifle in a mass shooting is so freakishly small it is not worth fretting about.

But the exact same logic can be applied to terror attacks by Islamic extremists.

It was  columnist Gideon Rachman of The Financial Times  who first pointed out that the number of Americans killed by terrorists since 1960 is "about the same as the number killed over the same period in deer accidents". For example, cars careening into a deer and being driven into a ditch.  The probability turned out to be roughly 1 in 18,000.

But look at what we are dealing with, despite the rarity of terror attacks!  TSA searches of bags etc.  at all the airports, alerts, blockages of roads and mobilized tactical and other police forces after each terror attack. So why this huge reaction difference if the odds are so minuscule?  Because we treat the threat of a terror attack - say on a plane or in NYC on New Year's Eve -   as a code red security threat that must be dealt with accordingly.  So my question is, "Why not treat mass shootings ALSO as terror attacks?"

If we adopt the arguments of the assault rifle lovers  i.e. that mass shootings are just a "distortion" of overall gun deaths, then why do most of them also support the anti-terror strategies?  I mean if the odds of being killed in a terror attack are 1 in 18,000 and the odds of being murdered in a mass shooting by a homegrown nut wielding an AR-15  are 1 in 11,000  why not adopt the same threat response for both?

There is only one logical reason for the difference in response: the rank and file of the AR-15 defenders and NRA gun lobby fear the Islamic extremists who carry out terror attacks more than the white boys who do mass shootings.  This is why I stated in a tongue- in -cheek manner that if most or all of these mass shootings were done by Islamic extremists (or black gang members)  you'd see action on gun control faster than a  tachyon's flight..

Look, the gun insanity will not stop until our population of assault weapon owners are forced to confront these contradictions and provide coherent explanations. Also,  why they continue to support a loophole in the gun laws that enables any extremist to buy an assault weapon,

Added to the gun debate there is added confusion now that Russian bots are evidently entering as well. As reported in the NY Times:

One hour after news broke about the school shooting in Florida last week, Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia released hundreds of posts taking up the gun control debate.

The accounts addressed the news with the speed of a cable news network. Some adopted the hashtag #guncontrolnow. Others used #gunreformnow and #Parklandshooting

Those automated Twitter accounts have been closely tracked by researchers. Last year, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, in conjunction with the German Marshall Fund, a public policy research group in Washington, created a website that tracks hundreds of Twitter accounts of human users and suspected bots that they have linked to a Russian influence campaign.

The researchers zeroed in on Twitter accounts posting information that was in step with material coming from well-known Russian propaganda outlets. To spot an automated bot, they looked for certain signs, like an extremely high volume of posts or content that conspicuously matched hundreds of other accounts.

All this shows me we have  a lot of work to do in order to combat and counter the NRA sophistry. We now also need to be aware many of the assault rifle defenders may well be Russian bots  seeking to stir up even bigger shit storms.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/cesar-chelala/77791/a-student-s-message-to-politicians-about-the-florida-massacre

And:


http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-lindorff/77748/us-mass-killers-crucially-abetted-by-nuts-who-won-t-ban-assault-weapons-and-high-capacity-clips