June 20, 2015

Charleston: Another atrocity in a gun-free zone

Ezra LevantRebel Commander

What happened this week in Charleston, South Carolina was a tragedy and an atrocity.

These shooting sprees always seem to take place in "gun free zones."

Maybe it's time to consider another solution...

JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

VISIT our NEW group blog The Megaphone!
It’s your one-stop shop for rebellious commentary from independent and fearless readers and writers.
READ Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights --
Ezra Levant’s book about the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, censorship and the Mohammed cartoons was voted "the best political book of the last 25 years."

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-06-21 22:41:47 -0400
Ezra needs to look at the bigger picture. Australia brought in gun control in the 1990s – they banned assault rifles and introduced licensing, and they saw a dramatic decline in the murder rate. Overall, society was much better off.
commented 2015-06-21 11:03:46 -0400
It is illegal to own a firearm in Mexico as well
commented 2015-06-21 09:48:26 -0400
But we really don’t have anything to worry about since it was only a few short years ago that, after Sandy Hook, Obama made it a (another) number one priority to see that “nothing like that would ever happened again”. It was one of his really important number one priorities, so he personally assigned that task to Joe Biden. We should be asking Joe how he’s coming along with that. Anyway, the point is that we can all rest assured and feel safe in the knowledge that Uncle Joe and Cousin Barry have our backs.
commented 2015-06-21 09:22:33 -0400
True North; Thanks to your comment, and the comments from other Rebels, this is turning into a great thread that’s showing more sensible discussion than can be seen on any MSM. However, I don’t believe that I’ve missed the point that you say I did. Let me quote myself:

“as soon as they (the youngster) touch or hold one (a gun) they would be in violation of the law and, if appropriate, so equally would their parents or guardians be, and so would be the gun’s owner, and/or the person who was previously in possession of that gun (whether the youngster had consent or not). I believe that by drawing additional people into equal culpability would go a long way to keeping a gun out of the hands of someone likely to commit this type of act.”
commented 2015-06-21 09:08:32 -0400
There is a person I know, yes he works in the media and has a radio show. He was very upset that a member of the NRA, his name is something Cotton. This radio host I know of said the Mr. Cotton was blaming the victims in this mass shooting. But here’s the thing. I don’t believe he was blaming the victim so much as to point out, that this poster worked hard to make his church a gun free zone. I understood his reasoning to do this because it’s a place of worship. I believe Mr.Cotton was just pointing out the irony of it all. He was pointing out that if just one person other then the shooter had a gun, this mass shoot would not have been able to get away with out he has done. There is a reason why this particular murderer targeted a church, just like targeting a school or theater. It’s because the murderer knows that there are going to be no guns in these places, so it’s easy picking to cause as much damage as possible. I call this particular murderer a chicken shit. If he wanted to kill black people, why didn’t he go to the hood!? So you see banning guns or coming up with more gun regulations only controls the law abiding, not the criminal.
commented 2015-06-21 08:57:48 -0400
George, Bill. You are both missing the point. In virtually every case of a ‘child’ carrying out a mass murder, they have done it with someone else’s gun. In the current case, while banned from purchasing his own gun, this little monster was given a gun by his dad, who apparently bought it with the express purpose of giving it to his little murderer. It was dad’s gun used by the kid. There are too many cases where, the child has either stolen a parent’s or sibling’s gun, or has even been given a gun, that was used in the crime.

The time has come to make proper and safe storage of a gun part of the equation. If the owner of the gun has stored it in a manner that allows a child to gain access to it, or if a gun, legally purchased or otherwise obtained, registered to an adult and then improperly stored or transferred or gifted to another person and then is subsequently used in a crime, the legal owner of that gun should be held as responsible, at least equally to the perp, and punished accordingly.

If the gun used in a crime is not stored safely and is acquired by a child to commit any crime then the owner of that gun should shoulder an equal responsibility for the crime. You may not be able to control what these little monsters think and do, but their access to guns in the home can be controlled and should be made the legal responsibility of the owner with stiff penalties concurrent with the crime committed.
commented 2015-06-21 08:32:36 -0400
Intended mass killings have been stopped by armed civilians.

Despite knowing that, Uber’s reaction to one of their drivers recently using his pistol to shop a would-be mass murder has been …… to ban guns! Their driver should have got a medal; instead he gets a gun ban. Sometimes, the antii-gun dogma runs too deep to permit rational thought.

commented 2015-06-20 22:50:26 -0400
Gun laws or not, it seems like that punk was on a deranged drug induced suicide mission. Albeit a slow painful journey for the survivors who await the death sentence for the punk.
commented 2015-06-20 21:40:45 -0400
My son, US Navy now retired, was the Force Protection Officer for the destroyer on which he served. He was 24-26 at the time. Not only did he have a gun, he was responsible for all the firearms on the ship. Now that he is retired he owns a hand gun for range practice and personal protection. It is a shame that he, or someone like him, was not in the bible study on Wednesday night. He would have blasted that monster straight to hell.
On another note, I do wonder about the psychotropic drugs this young man might have been taking. Who prescribed them? The Dr. that wrote the script must have known that something was wrong or he wouldn’t have prescribed the drugs in the first place. The Dr. also must have known that the side effects of these drugs could cause violent outbursts.
I would like to know more about that side of the story.
commented 2015-06-20 20:42:22 -0400
Bill; thank you so much for paying me the compliment of a thorough and well-reasoned response to my humble effort.

First of all I may have inadvertently mislead you. I’m okay with the current age requirements for driving, drinking, voting, having sex, and so on. It was only gun possession that I proposed an age requirement to something in the twenty-five to thirty year old range.

I have no doubts that a very high percentage of “young” folks can go through most of these experiences, including, like you, gun ownership, without mishap. But I equally have no doubt that almost every young person, at some time or another, whilst indulging in something, will do something stupid. That’s what I think of each time I hear that a teenager or a twenty-something (and that’s the typical age) commits one of these atrocious massacres. In a sense I’m proposing age profiling in an effort to save many innocent lives which I considered to be a more palatable and maybe more acceptable strategy than naively trying to ban guns, or something equally stupid, even if it’s at the expense of not being linear.

I don’t know enough, actually I don’t know anything, about violence inducing drugs, to be able to say anything sensible about that. I defer to your knowledge. (I do learn so much on this website . . . seriously).

I did use the word “privilege” in a slovenly and haphazard manner, you’ve got me there.
commented 2015-06-20 18:54:50 -0400
George – 2 issues with your reasoning – Maturity (ie civil/personal responsibility) is an individual thing – some mature early some never do. I was controlling the farmstead pests and providing the odd rabbit dinner with a .22 when I was 8 – it was a responsibility and my Dad made sure I understood my responsibilities when handling that gun, I did not betray his trust nor that of society at large just like 99.999% of firearms owners in my generation. Before FDR invented the teenager, most young people were married, working and shouldered adult responsibility by the time they were 18-20. Many people in their teens raised families, ran farms and businesses and defending their nation. By those standards we are all in arrested maturity by comparison with our ancestors. If you are going to raise arbitrary age restrictions on things like property ownership or civilly responsible activities like voting, driving, marriage, parenthood etc. based in level of maturation, most of the boomer and subsequent generations would not be able to drink, vote, drive, procreate, or own a gun, – socially we have devolved into self centered perennial children, not all but many – but that’s another issue – going by your theory and keeping the theory linear you would have to reach 30 to vote drive etc. as well – seems about unworkable as mass confiscations and bans. second, why not come at this from the front side (direct causes) instead of the reverse (ban guns) -psychotropic violence-inducing drugs were involved in virtually every mass shooting – why not ban them? Oh yeah they tried drug bans before. In the US and Canada, armed self defense is NOT a privilege – that is a well propagandized police state myth -section 26 of our charter recognizes rights which existed before the Charter and the “right to arms for defense of home and person” is a British common law right from the magna carta through Blackstone’s commentary to the code law of Canada – only a malevolent totalitarian regime would tell you that armed self defense is a “privilege”. The right to protect your life by whatever means needed is an ancient natural right we gained as we crawled out of the bloody swamps of Feudal tyranny – that is why the US founders made the 2nd amendment – it was an off-shoot of Sir William Blackstone’s 5 core rights of the citizen which al British subjects have.
commented 2015-06-20 17:19:38 -0400
This latest killer purposely went into a place where people were unarmed. He did not go to some of the bad areas of Detroit or Chicago or some other place where there are armed black people because he knew he would likely have been gunned down himself. And if he had been respectful of human life and not a racist, the gun would not have made him into a killer. It is hatred and prejudice and racism and ignorance that is the cause of this, not guns. Even if we take away all guns, this hatred and prejudice and ignorance would remain and killers would build bombs or form gangs to kill others. It is time to try and address what causes people to be so filled with murderous intent.
commented 2015-06-20 16:43:48 -0400
People who kill with a gun ignore bans! Only law abiding citizens would not carry a gun leaving them defenceless.
If you could destroy every gun a ban night work but that will never happen since baby would make them. They ate called zip guns.
commented 2015-06-20 15:41:03 -0400
Full disclosure first. I don’t like guns. Well, except maybe trying to win a fluffy toy at the fair.

I was not aware of the evidence that supports the notion that gun crime rates are lower in areas that allow gun possession, and higher in areas that prohibit gun possession. I find that to be really interesting and understandable.

I can’t think of any one thing alone that could realistically be done to prevent such tragedies but perhaps there are tactics and strategies that would reduce or minimize these occurrences. Attempting to simply ban guns, as a preventive measure, is just being naive, silly, ridiculous, absurd, impractical, doomed to failure, and so on.

I’ve mentioned before, one of my favourite axioms in life is simply that “Young people do stupid things”. We’ve all been young before, so in our heart of hearts we all should know that. Whether young people are behind the wheel of a car, or learning to imbibe alcohol, or are in possession of a loaded firearm, or trying to impress someone that they’re attracted to, or whatever, eventually they will do something stupid.

I don’t have evidence to back this up, but it’s my perception that so much (perhaps almost all) of this type of massacre is carried out by young people, i.e. mostly by people in their early twenties and sometimes even younger.

So, for what it’s worth, here’s my offering. Prohibit young people (say those younger than thirty or so, or maybe twenty-five) to possess a gun. Maybe they can own one, that’s okay, but as soon as they touch or hold one they would be in violation of the law and, if appropriate, so equally would their parents or guardians be, and so would be the gun’s owner, and/or the person who was previously in possession of that gun. I believe that by drawing additional people into equal culpability would go a long way to keeping a gun out of the hands of someone likely to commit this type of act.

As for the people’s second amendment right, just like a driver’s licence, or the privilege to consume alcohol, or to have sex, you get it when you’re old enough.
commented 2015-06-20 14:04:54 -0400
The atrocity of Charleston is twofold – first American communists are attempting to resurrect the racist nature of gun control by smearing the 2nd amendment as racist, when in fact it is the liberty teeth for black Americans. The first gun control in the US was there to disarm blacks and keep them vulnerable to a southern oligarchy. The 2nd amendment helped blacks defend themselves and defeat the KKK *(recall the black Deacons), and many are reaffirming their faith in the 2nd amendment in the wake of the political spin over Charleston.


Second – the silent partner in almost all mass shootings was present in Charleston and the consensus media are ignoring the role prescription SRI drugs play in almost all of these psychotic shooting crimes – mass shooting crimes were virtually unknown before the broad unrestricted use of SRI psychotropics,


Lastly, Root had vowed to “start a race war” something he seems to have in common with high placed Democrats.
commented 2015-06-20 13:17:57 -0400
While listening to The Savage Nation, he played some of the survives wrenching pleas it was heart breaking to hear the pain these people are suffering and yet they forgave the murderer. Could you, could I NO THE SOONER HE IS DEAD THE BETTER. One other note he was on “MEDICATIONLIKE ALL THE OTHER MASS MURDERERS.
commented 2015-06-20 13:14:42 -0400
I don’t agree that this is even a gun issue. This is a social issue, meaning that this kid showed all the signs of doing something stupid. His parents ignored the signs, his friends, if he had any, but the people on face book that read his page must have had some inkling that something was off. With the development of social media everyone has the ability to stick there noses in everyone else’s business, and everyone seems to have an opinion, but yet this insanity seems to be in the rise, head scratcher, what ever happened to " it takes a village ".
commented 2015-06-20 12:58:35 -0400
The myth of gun control. The best gun control is if the nutbar knows that somebody may shoot back…………..
commented 2015-06-20 12:49:25 -0400
The statistics have proven that those states that allow regular law abiding people to keep guns and lower rules and laws against guns have a lower gun crime rate.

However, there is one thing I have notices among the anti-gun activists . . . they don’t care one whit about the statistics. They run high on emotions, not facts, so presenting them with facts falls on ears clamped firmly shut and on intransigent minds.
commented 2015-06-20 11:02:00 -0400
I used to be one of those folks who thought guns should be mostly banned except for cops and hunters. Of course, about 40 years ago I also voted Liberal. A long time ago I came to the realization that the bad guys do not give a damn about gun laws. In fact, as Ezra says, if they thought about gun laws at all it would be to be sure in the knowledge that their victims could not fight back. There are a lot of squeamish ones out there who object to letting law-abiding citizens arm themselves for protection but, as time goes on, that is looking more and more like an attractive alternative to giving these scumbags a target-rich environment. Just my two cents.