February 16, 2018

Whatever the “right” reaction to Parkland school shooting, I'm sure it can't be this

Katie HopkinsShillman Fellow

I think we’ve reached a new low even for us, accustomed as we are to news of tragedy and terror – and our reaction to it.

Even before the final bullet had left its magazine, the sound of Nikolas Cruz unloading his AR-15 assault rifle on his peers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida this week was eclipsed by the terrific noise of a million half-truths and maybes bellowed across the Internet and TV.

Each sound-bite cherry-picked by our good selves to confirm whatever bias we already had, we sat down and gorged ourselves until we were satiated, assured that we once again learned what we already knew.

This is the 18th school shooting in the US in 2018,” tweeted Everytown for Gun Safety, a non-profit group co-founded by Michael Bloomberg that is most famous for its running tally of school shootings.

The figure quickly became the established truth: 18 in 18, like "9/11" or "7/7," another cute short-cut to understanding numbers. And of course, it is an alarming figure.

It is also wrong.

Five of Everytown’s 18 school shootings listed for 2018 took place during school hours and resulted in injury. Three others appeared intentional, but did not hurt anyone. Two involved guns carried by enforcement officers — one a school police officer and the other a licensed peace officer who ran a college club. At least seven of Everytown’s 18 shootings took place outside normal school hours.

None of which makes it ok. Or seeks to undermine the feelings of mothers who send their kids to school with an extra kiss and a hug, just in case. No mother should feel like this.

But “18 in 18” is noise.

So too is the reaction of the Associated Press and the Anti-Defamation League, anxious to pin blame on the “far-right.”

"BREAKING," they screeched through loud-hailers, in caps lock:

“Leader of white nationalist group has confirmed suspect in Florida school shooting was a member of his organization.”

This “truth” was retweeted 40,000 times within the hour.

The mob felt comforted by the label. Now this was a white problem, a Trump problem, a Republican problem. The horror could be neatly placed inside a box. “Racists!” they could yell, through their tears.

The idea that this was a targeted attack by a member of a white nationalist organization who had “participated in paramilitary drills in Tallahassee” is indeed alarming.

It is also wrong.

In relatively short order, a Leon County Sheriff’s Office spokesman confirmed:

“We have no known ties between the Republic of Florida, Jordan Jereb or the Broward shooter.”

Less than 12 hours later Jordan Jereb appeared to be backing down from his claim that the shooter had ever been part of his Republic of Florida group.

“There was a misunderstanding because we have MULTIPLE people named Nicholas in ROF,” posted a user named @JordanJereb on Gab, a social media site.

“Are you really going to blame ME for the lying *** media? We know they are liars. F**k em.”

He may have something of a point.

But even as the empty noise grew louder, others shouted for more.

President Trump said he sent his “prayers and condolences” to the families of the dead, adding:

“No child, teacher or anyone else should ever feel unsafe in an American school.”

Sarah, a young woman believed to be a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, replied:

“I don’t want your condolences you fucking price [sic] of shit, my friends and teachers were shot. Multiple of my fellow classmates are dead. Do something instead of sending prayers. Prayers won’t fix this. But gun control will prevent it from happening again.”

By Thursday morning her message had been retweeted 65,000 times and liked by more than 154,000 people. Sarah’s tweet became the go-to hook for news anchors overly keen to repeat coarse language against a President they clearly despise, deliberately filtering content to fit their narrative.

It is a curious thing indeed.

It’s not only the attitude to gun control that changes with the identity of the shooter. The acceptance of prayer does, too.

After every Islamist terror attack in Western Europe you can depend on the people to hold a vigil and a prayer service, light candles and make heart-shaped gestures at the sky. The liberal press cover these touching events with reverence and respect, voicing over their b-roll with the platitudes we have all learned by rote:

“Brave people, defiant in the face of terror, determined to carry on as normal, we stand united" etc.

But prayers in the face of a school shooting are less acceptable to the liberal press. These prayers are not worthy – indeed, coming from the President they are viewed as a sign of weakness. And young Sarah was right there on hand to articulate this prejudice:

“Prayers won’t fix this you piece of sh*t. Gun control will.”

Strange. I don’t hear “Prayers won’t fix this. Controlling Islam will,” when our children are slaughtered by Islamists.

Amid all this noise, the wailing and the chaos, and the uneducated views of the masses (and I can be equally culpable here), I think we often miss the obvious points.

Numb to the actual tragedy itself, we move quickly to accusation and blame as a coping strategy, rather than looking honestly at the unprotected children lying dead on the floor.

Deaf to quiet truths, we swallow without question the untruths shouted in our face because their neatness makes them more palatable: “18 in 18.”

And blind to the glaringly obvious, we miss the fact that a young person with mental issues, weapons, a prescription and a grudge cannot be left to wander on to a school campus to seek revenge. Perhaps if he’d had a loving parent waiting for him at the school gate each day, his path would have been less dark.

Sometimes I think we shout loudest when we don’t know what to do. Perhaps if we all just listened a lot longer and spoke a little less we might be better placed to hear what actually happened, and learn how to stop something like it happening again.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2018-02-24 20:06:17 -0500
Because, the FBI’s failue is a failure of gun control. Which is to say, if gun control had done its job, the shooter wouldn’t have gotten a gun.
commented 2018-02-22 16:20:44 -0500
Andrew, not sure why you keep calling the FBI failure “gun control”.

I’m tired of repeating myself, read the transcript of the Judge’s instructions to the jury.

This thread is getting buried and you obfuscate – have a nice day!
commented 2018-02-21 13:50:19 -0500
“Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 2018-02-20 16:27:07 -0500
Stanley was not convicted of a crime, nor was there evidence to conclude he has been or is suffering from a mental illness. What precludes him from owning a gun? "

Both men have the same number of criminal convictions. .
.
“You said, “And, again, I ask, if law enforcement had stopped the Florida shooter from buying a gun, would that not be a case of gun control preventing a crime?”

How would “law enforcement” do this Andrew, what are you referring to? "

Probably through the same mechanisms you seem to think the FBI is capable of.

"
The system failures are colossal, and in my opinion, there should be an investigation ordered to hold the FBI accountable for not doing a proper investigation in the first place. Heads should roll! "
I agree.

“There was time to investigate and intervene ie: prevent this unstable person from carrying out his threats”

So this happened because the gun control system failed to do its job?

Which is to say… had the gun control system functioned, it would have stopped the shooting, ergo gun control can actually prevent shootings?

If you disagree, please specify why.
commented 2018-02-20 16:27:07 -0500
Stanley was not convicted of a crime, nor was there evidence to conclude he has been or is suffering from a mental illness. What precludes him from owning a gun?

The instructions from the bench were clear…the jury deliberated and rendered a verdict. Disagree with it, or not, it doesn’t much matter to me.

In the case of the mass shooter, he obtained a license illegally. He posted his intentions , along with other disturbing commentary; FBI were alerted and did nothing about it. There was time to investigate and intervene ie: prevent this unstable person from carrying out his threats. Take steps to revoke gun license and remove all firearms; charge him accordingly for lying on the application, uttering threats etc…and appeal to the judiciary for mandatory mental health treatment in a secure facility….I’m sure his therapist could have assisted the court in this regard. An independent psychiatric examination would also be helpful.

The system failures are colossal, and in my opinion, there should be an investigation ordered to hold the FBI accountable for not doing a proper investigation in the first place. Heads should roll!

You said, “And, again, I ask, if law enforcement had stopped the Florida shooter from buying a gun, would that not be a case of gun control preventing a crime?”

How would “law enforcement” do this Andrew, what are you referring to?
commented 2018-02-20 12:05:19 -0500
Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 2018-02-19 15:56:20 -0500
Well Andrew, living in Canada as you do, why not use terms found in the CCC? You are over reaching again Andrew, why not ask the Crown why he wasn’t charged with criminal negligence causing death? Perhaps the CJS and jurors know much more about this case than you do. I think it would be helpful for you to review the judges instructions from the bench & remember a lawful jury who heard the evidence deliberated for almost 15 hours before rendering their verdict."

And, apparently predicated entirely on whether a gun can “hang fire”, or go off long after the trigger is pulled – which is to say, whether culpability lies on what is an unlikely equipment failure, followed by exquisitely unlikely circumstances, rather than Stanley’s own actions. Those circumstances have never happened before, and are unlikely to ever happen again, but are conceptually possible, ,in theory. And that in-theory possibility, that one-in-a-billion convergence of freak circumstances, is what secured his acquittal.

Does imprecise terminology change the ultimate conclusion I have made?
“He was acquitted, so yes, he should keep his gun”
So, if you’re not convicted of a crime, you should be allowed to own weapons?

“The shooter lied on his firearms application, which is illegal. The FBI were alerted on Jan.5/18 and didn’t follow protocol… investigating/intervening. Red flags were ignored.”
In your previous comment, you seem to have decided that conviction is the benchmark to disqualify firearms ownership. The Shooter had not been convicted of anything.
Incidentally, the punishment for providing false information is a second degree misdemeanor in Florida, punishable by a $500 fine and up to 60 days in prison.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0837/Sections/0837.06.html
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.082.html
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.083.html

In Canada, “pointing a firearm” – necessary for someone to get shot, is max $5000 fine/6 months if summary, 5 years if indictable. This is the standard penalty for basic firearms offenses.
http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Pointing_a_Firearm_(Offence)

Which is to say, that STanley committed a far graver crime under Canadian law, than the Florida shooter did under Florida law, by providing false information (and, of course, neither has been convicted of anything) Yet you argue Stanley should still be allowed to have a gun.

“So how exactly do you expect “law enforcement” to prevent the gun purchase in this case? "

I don’t know, you’re the one arguing that law enforcement should have done something, and apparently are simultaneously arguing that gun control could have stopped him, and that gun control doesn’t stop these crimes. (or am I misinterpreting something here? Could you please clarify? If the FBI could have stopped him, that means gun control would have been an effective means to prevent this particular crime.)
commented 2018-02-19 17:26:44 -0500
I realize you are an armchair legal expert in your own mind. Your use of third degree murder explains a lot about your leanings in this case.
commented 2018-02-19 15:56:20 -0500
Well Andrew, living in Canada as you do, why not use terms found in the CCC? You are over reaching again Andrew, why not ask the Crown why he wasn’t charged with criminal negligence causing death? Perhaps the CJS and jurors know much more about this case than you do. I think it would be helpful for you to review the judges instructions from the bench & remember a lawful jury who heard the evidence deliberated for almost 15 hours before rendering their verdict.
He was acquitted, so yes, he should keep his gun.

The shooter lied on his firearms application, which is illegal. The FBI were alerted on Jan.5/18 and didn’t follow protocol… investigating/intervening. Red flags were ignored.
So how exactly do you expect “law enforcement” to prevent the gun purchase in this case?
commented 2018-02-19 14:53:32 -0500
Wow, Tammie, you’re easily distracted by these semantic delections, aren’t you? It’s the American term for manslaughter, which IS a charge that exists in the Canadian system.

Which, again, is what he should have been charged with – as in, accidental killing, which is something his defense openly admitted to.

I’m guessing you have no serious disagreements with my post, then, since you don’t actually address anything meaningful within it?

I again ask, should Stanley still be allowed to own a weapon, despite his demonstrable inability to handle them responsibly?

And, again, I ask, if law enforcement had stopped the Florida shooter from buying a gun, would that not be a case of gun control preventing a crime?

Or, will you do as I predict, and engage in further deflection?
commented 2018-02-19 13:25:06 -0500
Andrew, your claim he should have been charged with “third degree murder” is laughable….I’m laughing because third degree murder isn’t a charge in Canada. Simple search on your part will confirm it.

Sounds like you need to read up more on the Stanley case.
commented 2018-02-19 13:00:39 -0500
“Flat earth. .Flat water commented 2018-02-19 01:42:14 -0500
Not true Annie … The ratio of the population from Canada to America is about 10%… They have far more gangsters and criminals then we have per capita… "
How many more, precisely? In rates, of course, to adjust for the population disparity.

If guns are such a deterrent to crime, why is their murder rate three times higher than ours? (and yes, I mean rate. Their absolute number of murders is 28x higher, 17,250 vs 616 in 2016). When you account for ratio of murders committed with a firearm, the numbers are even worse. If guns are such a deterrent to crime, why is the US such a bloodbath? There are obviously a number of confounding variables here… but it’s pretty clear that more guns aren’t the solution.

People like to talk about the rate of sexual assaults in Sweden, but compare their sexual assault rate (reported, about 70/100k) is only about twice the number of Americans shot every year (35/100k). Something to think about.

“Why does everybody like to play with those numbers to fit a narrative that is neither True or makes people safer..?!! "
Interesting comment, considering your follow up.
“Probably the biggest thing that they don’t talk about is all the murders that we’re stopped by law abiding citizens with open Cary permits to protect themselves and other people… The number of people killed in a gun free zone before the shooter is stopped is 18.3… compared to the number of people shot in a open carry state which is 1.2 then the perp is neutralized..”
I’d like to see your supporting evidence, please. Considering, for example, that Texas, Florida, and Nevada are all “open carry” states, and the sites of the most recent massacres, this one doesn’t superficially pass the smell test. Perhaps I am wrong, but let’s see the actual statistics. Preferably traceable back to official statistics from a reputable source.

The simple reality is that with automatic weapons, or things like bump-stocks that turn semi into fully automatics, you can’t neutralize the shooter before he’s emptied his clip into the crowd. It’s a simple fact of reaction time.

“But the biggest thing that you’re not at knowledge Ing and he is law-abiding citizens are not a threat to other law abiding citizens.”
What about preventable crimes by non-law abiding citizens? I believe that’s the real issue here. The recurring theme here is that the guns ARE being purchased by “law abiding” citizens who, due to mental instability, shouldn’t have those weapons. Is “law abiding” really the best metric to evaluate suitability for weapon ownership, considering these mass shooters often ARE law-abiding, if not necessarily mentally competent, until they go off?

If the FBI or some other law enforcement agency blocked him from buying the gun, wouldn’t that be an example of gun control preventing a crime, something the NRA denies is a possibility?

“Let’s talk about the Saskatchewan shooting that occurred when the young Indian kid was killed while commissioning a crime under the influence of alcohol and armed with a rifle…
Just imagine for a minute if four or five white guys showed up at the Chiefs house on a reservation while being intoxicated and armed and trying to run his family over with their car and stealing his possessions… They would’ve shot him and you wouldn’t of heard a thing about it from the media…
But I suppose that no mother should have to worry for the life of her son while he’s armed, intoxicated with superior numbers and robbing people at will if he’s native. "

Do you feel a skidoo is more valuable than someone’s life? Should the farmer, who clearly can’t obey even basic safety procedures (rule #1 is, don’t aim it at people, no?) be allowed to own a weapon?

The only reason Stanley wasn’t convicted is because he should have been charged with third degree, not second degree. Given that he’s an admitted killer who is grossly irresponsible with his weapons, should he be allowed to still own firearms?
commented 2018-02-19 11:06:26 -0500
Andrew, you have already admitted you are a misanthropic woman, and, you certainly post like a jaundiced human being who from time to time makes connections on the internet.
No loneliness?
commented 2018-02-19 11:01:57 -0500
I was referring to your claim about Texans. Paint with a broad brush much?
commented 2018-02-19 01:42:14 -0500
Not true Annie … The ratio of the population from Canada to America is about 10%… They have far more gangsters and criminals then we have per capita… Why does everybody like to play with those numbers to fit a narrative that is neither True or makes people safer..?!! Probably the biggest thing that they don’t talk about is all the murders that we’re stopped by law abiding citizens with open Cary permits to protect themselves and other people… The number of people killed in a gun free zone before the shooter is stopped is 18.3… compared to the number of people shot in a open carry state which is 1.2 then the perp is neutralized.. But the biggest thing that you’re not at knowledge Ing and he is law-abiding citizens are not a threat to other law abiding citizens.

Let’s talk about the Saskatchewan shooting that occurred when the young Indian kid was killed while commissioning a crime under the influence of alcohol and armed with a rifle…
Just imagine for a minute if four or five white guys showed up at the Chiefs house on a reservation while being intoxicated and armed and trying to run his family over with their car and stealing his possessions… They would’ve shot him and you wouldn’t of heard a thing about it from the media…
But I suppose that no mother should have to worry for the life of her son while he’s armed, intoxicated with superior numbers and robbing people at will if he’s native.
commented 2018-02-18 16:16:38 -0500
“Drew Wakariuk commented 2018-02-18 02:25:11 -0500
Andrew are you for real? Well whatever helps you sleep at night. Now show me any stats to show gun control works. "

uh… Canadian vs American gun crime rates? What do you think is behind the massive disparity if not gun control?
“Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 2018-02-17 22:19:58 -0500
In some of your posts Andrew, you allege Texans go everywhere with their guns….including church. You obviously don’t understand most congregants leave their guns at home or locked in their vehicle. Consider why they do this.
Think about it for more than a few seconds.”

Why do they do that? I’m really curious as to your point. I’m especially curious, since your original argument in this thread was the deterrent effect – if people can carry weapons but choose not to, can you thus rely on the supposed deterrent effect? This would be a prime case where it should exist, but clearly didn’t?

“Did you hear about the usher who ran out to his car to get his gun after a criminal ran into the church and started shooting congregants? He stopped a massacre.”

Is this still the Texas church, or a different incident? That doesn’t sound like the Texas Church incident, where a massacre was definitely not stopped – the shooter in that one had done his business and was on his way out the door, and died at his own hand after a car chase. (if nothing else, illustrating the problem with reactive rather than proactive strategy) Could you link to the incident you’re thinking of?

“Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 2018-02-17 22:37:28 -0500
Rob, one of them has admitted to being paid to post on Rebel, the other is a lonely woman posing as a man who has a very limited understanding of the world. "

Personal insults: always the sign of someone who feels confident their arguments stand on their own merit?
commented 2018-02-18 16:00:31 -0500
From 1900 to today there have been well over 200,000,000 people murdered worldwide by governments alone. Humanity has had a serious problem with violence, including the state sanctioned variety, and it is all to easy to say that if only we could restrict the availability of potential weapons, then life as we know it would improve. It won’t… because the weapons themselves are not the root of the problem…

Apart from the increasing availability of violent films, video games, religious factions that promote/condone violence and the teaching of children in schools that they are but a product of a mindless universe, the one thing that the media tends to overlook is the effect of psychiatric drugs and or drugs that have mood altering effects (there are many) on individuals.

The inability to distinguish reality form fantasy is enhanced by many of the drugs these children are increasingly subjected to at a younger and younger age; indeed, and all this for the sake of offsetting the effects of government mandated vaccination programs that introduce 49 doses of 14 vaccines by the time a child is 6 years of age or 69 doses of 16 vaccines by the age of 18. Vaccines are specifically designed to cause inflammation in the body, including brain inflammation, which in turn results in brain damage yet the government, the medical profession and the drug industry only reluctantly acknowledge the most severe forms of brain damage resulting from vaccines while virtually ignoring the lesser chronic forms of brain damage that will inevitably cause innumerable mental disorders.
commented 2018-02-18 10:41:50 -0500
AR – 15’s are NOTASSAULT RIFLES”. Let’s be clear on this. Just because they are this scary black color doesn’t mean they are vicious and vindictive. We all know the snowflakes want to ban guns but in reality knives and cars do more damage. Your Lieberal government wants all citizens unarmed so they can better control you. Don’t let Justin Mohhamed Trudeau take your guns because he has his own agenda and it doesn’t involve Christians or whites!!

We all know “Prayers and such” won’t stop the slaughter. The only thing I know of that will stop a deranged killer or Muslim Terrorist with a gun is a well trained citizen with a gun. The leftist media propaganda machine doesn’t publish any of the news stories of a citizen with CCW stopping a crime or murder because it doesn’t fit the lame stream media’s or Lieberal government’s agenda

I’m very sorry to say that until there is better mental health initiatives we’ll get this type of slaughter. In the interim arm yourselves and get properly trained because your current Lieberal government doesn’t give a s_it about you only the Muzzies they import to eliminate you.
commented 2018-02-18 02:26:01 -0500
Andrew we are fine with stopping criminals , that is not what the left wants though.
commented 2018-02-18 02:25:11 -0500
Andrew are you for real? Well whatever helps you sleep at night. Now show me any stats to show gun control works.
commented 2018-02-17 23:31:39 -0500
How about power to the People…..
commented 2018-02-17 23:01:54 -0500
Sh!t….. thanks Tammie…I still have my doubts….
commented 2018-02-17 22:37:28 -0500
Rob, one of them has admitted to being paid to post on Rebel, the other is a lonely woman posing as a man who has a very limited understanding of the world.
commented 2018-02-17 22:25:13 -0500
All Rebels out there…This is my opinion or question only…Is James/Andrew/Sarah/etc…. are they trudeau and butts on this site?…Look at the craziness of their post’s?
commented 2018-02-17 22:19:58 -0500
In some of your posts Andrew, you allege Texans go everywhere with their guns….including church. You obviously don’t understand most congregants leave their guns at home or locked in their vehicle. Consider why they do this.
Think about it for more than a few seconds.

Given the number of praying folk killed last year, while their gun was locked inside of their car, I have a sneaking suspicion citizens who have a legal carry and conceal licence will enter church with a gun, praying he/she doesn’t have to use it. Ask these people if they would have ever entered a church with a gun and the resounding answer would have been NO.

Did you hear about the usher who ran out to his car to get his gun after a criminal ran into the church and started shooting congregants? He stopped a massacre.
commented 2018-02-17 22:00:40 -0500
Oh Andrew, how about you limit your “back handed insults”!!!
commented 2018-02-17 21:59:49 -0500
Andrew,100% preventable had the FBI followed protocol.
NRA and legal gun owners don’t support illegal gun ownership & systems that fail. There are systems in place which criminals circumvent, or the government doesn’t follow…we find out about it after the tragic the fact.

View the Virtual President Address re: Gun Control.

You seem to fall back on a misguided ideology.
commented 2018-02-17 21:28:41 -0500
“Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 2018-02-17 20:14:48 -0500
Andrew, the FBI dropped the ball, what is hard for you to understand? "

Oh, I understand it. It’s not the first time either. I’ve acknowledge as such in my responses, which you apparently didn’t read.

Simple question: had the FBI actually stopped him, would that be an example of gun control stopping a mass shooting? Isn’t that the exact opposite of what the gun rights lobby has been saying? If you disagree, please explain exactly where the hole in my hypothesis is.
commented 2018-02-17 20:22:36 -0500
To add to:

TAMMIE PUTINSKI-ZANDBELT commented 2018-02-17 20:14:48 -0500
Andrew, the FBI dropped the ball, what is hard for you to understand?

Didn’t some FBI dude resign because of this?
commented 2018-02-17 20:14:48 -0500
Andrew, the FBI dropped the ball, what is hard for you to understand?
commented 2018-02-17 19:54:23 -0500
This is worth a re post also…

TAMMIE PUTINSKI-ZANDBELT commented 2018-02-17 10:09:32 -0500
I am re-posting this excellent video (it’s five years old, but, very relevant)
Virtual President Giving Speech On Gun Control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5at0lBv0Zog
commented 2018-02-17 19:52:50 -0500
Another re post…………

COMMON SENSE and TAMMIE PUTINSKI-ZANDBELT ….

I’m with you both…..Just look at what trudeau is doing to Canada without a gun!!

COMMON SENSE commented 2018-02-16 22:43:24 -0500
Andrew, you stated “He shouldn’t have been able to purchase the gun in the first place – an ounce of prevention.” Criminals don’t register guns, they can get a gun anytime regardless of any and all gun control provisions in place. Your argument is moot.
“the difficulty of hitting an unknown target from the middle of a panicking crowd, there’s very little chance of a “hero” actually stopping anything until after the damage has been done.. and the shooters know that.” Rediculous, the target will be the one standing still, firing, he will be an easy target for sure as he will be doing the exact opposite of everyone else. He will be concentrating on firing into an unarmed crowd of helpless people, not looking for the armed one that will be sighting him in and taking him down. You are wrong.

TAMMIE PUTINSKI-ZANDBELT commented 2018-02-16 22:11:18 -0500
Okay Andrew, church goers are packing when they attend Sunday service…Pulse nightclub goers were armed to the teeth while partying…San Bernadino workers arrived at work with firearms to protect themselves from a muslim extremist and his wife at their Christmas celebration…. Give your head a massive shake!

Sort out protocols not being followed; agencies not communicating with one another and revamping mental health laws which are preventing very sick people from getting the help that they need.

Disarming law abiding citizens is not based on logic or an understanding of what the framers of the Constitution were safeguarding the country with.

Read the second amendment and take a moment to reflect on why there are protections against tyrannical government leaders. Research how Hitler, Stalin and Mao disarmed their citizens making them subjects who were no longer able to defend themselves against terrible government abuses and millions of dead subjects under these regimes.