Thursday, September 11, 2014

Results in: Victimes to Blame


The pro-gun think tanks saw the Virginia Tech massacre coming. They didn't know the details - that this particular tragedy would happen in that particular place - Blacksburg, Virginia. But they knew that something like this was bound to happen somewhere, sometime and they were prepared. They have transmitted the pre-planned media offensive to their loyal hacks and flacks and the results are all over the American airwaves.

What was the planned response to the next mass shooting? Step 1: Blame the victims. Step 2: Argue that this latest tragedy is proof that everyone should carry a gun, so when a firefight breaks out, you can jump in, guns a-blazin'.

Here's republican cheeleader Neil Bortz on his show yesterday: "How far have we advanced in the wussification of America?"... "How the hell do 25 students allow themselves to be lined up against the wall in a classroom and picked off one by one? How does that happen, when they could have rushed the gunman, the shooter, and most of them would have survived?"

Here's (conservative web site) National Review Online contributor John Derbyshire: "Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals (italics mine), why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake -- one of them reportedly a .22."

Note that? "Only two handguns, for goodness sake!" Why say that? What is the point? It seems to me that the point Mr. Derbyshire is trying to make is that these guns are not dangerous. The problem is these lilly-livered college students were too chicken to make a frontal assault.

Conservative pundit Michelle Malkin wrote: "Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance. And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense."

Malkin's message? Again, the students were yellow and it's the school's fault for not teaching...what? Armed combat?

In his April 18 (conservative publication) National Review column, Mark Steyn suggested that Virginia Tech students were guilty of an "awful corrosive passivity" that is "an existential threat to a functioning society."

Getting the hint yet? These students and faculty were cowards. They are to blame for their own deaths, not the gunman, certainly not the gun. If only Cho Seung-Hui had busted into a convention of right-wing media personalities, things would have been different.

If only.

Here it is in black and white, the same message coming from several different messengers. Funny how all the conservatives had the same exact opinion on the same exact day, isn't it? Well, not really. They always do. It's not that they all think exactly alike, it's that they all get their talking points emailed to them from conservative think tanks each day.

After this tragedy, most rational people would think that perhaps we should take a good look at our gun laws, wouldn't you think? But not republicans. The gun lobby sees this as an opportunity! An opportunity to expand the market for handguns. With some hard work and generous amounts of scare-tactic help from Fox News, the handgun could be like the home PC - an indispensable tool for everyday life.
~
And do you think that Americans would be satisfied just carrying a little harmless .22 (to paraphrase Mr. Derbyshire)? No, of course not. Americans are not satisfied with anything if it can be made bigger, faster and more powerful. You think the gun lobby has not foreseen that once we all have handguns, we will soon want bigger, deadlier weapons? Tom next door bought a .357 Magnum and now my penis feels small. I'd better buy a .44. Soon, we'll be pushing for the legalization of machine guns. Soon after that, your child will be going to school outfitted like the boy in the picture above. He'll have to because everyone he encounters - all day, every day - will be armed. You can shop at Uzis R Us.

On Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson asked: "So, theoretically, in this lecture hall where all 31 were killed, there could have been someone with a carry permit carrying their gun to shoot the shooter?"

Michelle Malkin, noted on her weblog that the university prohibits handguns. She then quoted a weblog post from "Andrew's Dad," who wrote: "Just imagine if students were armed. We no longer need to imagine what will happen when they are not armed." Malkin also quoted an email from a reader who claimed: "Imagine if sensible CCW [Concealed Carry Weapon] laws allowed people to defend themselves, this tragedy could have been avoided."

Yes, if everybody was carrying a weapon, no one would ever get shot! Just think of it! Every drunk in every bar, every anger-management dropout who just got cut off in traffic, every high school gang member, every survivalist that fancies himself a hero in the making, all toting guns. What a beautiful thought. Violence would surely disappear.

Why just look around the world! Look at those countries where everyone has a gun: Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia. Perfect pictures of pastoral peace, they are. Now look at those places where no one has a gun: England, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands. Oh, the carnage that goes on there, day after day. You know the stats. More people are murdered in the US every year than all of western Europe and Japan combined. You can throw in nearly every country on Earth and the US still tops the total.
~
Remember as you see and hear these opinions and slanted stories invade your auto and your living room: These are the same people who thought the Iraq war was just a crackerjack idea. They also claim that it's all going wonderfully over there. I'm just saying take the source into consideration. They don't seem to be very good at predicting human behavior.

So, which way do you want your country to go? Do you want to be more like Pakistan or more like Belgium? We already know which way the gun lobby wants to go. Just turn on Fox News and you'll get the message: Don't be a pussy, buy a gun.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Some of those quotes would be laughably pathetic if they weren't so fucking seriously disturbing.

Thanks again for another brilliantly informative and justifiably angry post, Bug.

Bugwit said...

Thank you sir! I am starting my own line of microwaveable meals. I'm calling them "Angry Man Dinners."

Pink said...

Hey Bugsy,

Well...I hate to admit it but I'd like to see the cops carrying guns here in the UK. Just a month ago we were marching in the streets of my neighborhood because yet another teenager was gunned down in the street with gang violence.

England is not a safe country. We are in denial here too.
xx
pinks

Bugwit said...

Tania: Hey! You're back from darkest Africa! All recovered yet?

I have no problem with police officers being armed. Heck, in most European countries, Police are more heavily armed than American cops. Go figure.

So, as a solution to the UK's violent crime, do you think that access to weapons should be increased or decreased? I'm not trying to lead you, I'm just curious.

Kat said...

If we fight fat with diet and exercise or fire with water, why do we fight guns with guns?

Bugwit said...

Kat: THe best way to kill lung cancer cells is by smoking. A LOT!!!

Pink said...

Bugsy - I am back. Not happy about it but here nonetheless. I was in paradise, mister.

I'll have to blog more about it in the weeks to come but I'm still just sitting with it.

You know...the only time I ever thought of that cad, Robbie, was when I was watching a Cheetah stalk a gazelle? Hmm...interesting analogy but suitable.

So...on to guns...I think cops should have increased access, yes.

xx
pinks

Molly said...

I am glad to see you carry on the fight, bugwit. I was satisfied that I did not have to explain anything to my children.

Bugwit said...

Pinks: Actually I meant are you in favor of more handguns for the general population.

Molly: There's a lot of things going on these days that I'd hate to have to explain to a child.

~d said...

This is just nutty and insane and yes! I am sorry so many people got hurt, but do people REALLY think if we all have GUNS...(arrggh!) Nevermind. It is Friday. Hopefully that will mean wine. A bottle or two. Hopefully she will stick to red. *This CAN be a heated argument, I had a little say-thank you, and now I will sit back and watch. And maybe find NSFW pics. HAHA

Chris "Chickenwing" Quigley said...

Bug,

I could not have said this any better. I share your incredulity and your outrage.

Bugwit said...

Tildy: Here's to wine! I'll drink to that! Well, the question is simple: When you look around the world, which countires have more crime, the ones with llots of guns on the street or the ones with with few guns?

And, if handing out weapons makes everyone safer, why don't we give enveryone a nuke instead of trying to stop their proliferation?

Thanks for the pic! I;ll open it when I get home.

Sleepydog: THanks, bro!

Molly said...

Bugwit, check your email. I may have figured out Keely Smith.

Kentucky Brat said...

I thought about commenting on the last post.. then today I've been pondering on this one. I won't argue any point here, as I see I'm totally 'out gunned'.. but I will say this.

I once heard someone say...

"I always carry my gun, and I will shoot a good person in the leg to get a clear shot at a crazy persons head."

Guess who I want to walk around with? ;-)

Bugwit said...

Wow! A Brat sighting! Where have YOU been hiding? Nice to see you!

Let's see...was that Dirty Harry? Critter? :-)

Bugwit said...

Tildy: Nice pic! Almost makes me change my mind about gun control. Remember Wendy O. Williams? She used to fellate a shotgun on stage. I never loved guns so much.

Pink said...

hi bugs

well...more handguns for the population? don't they have enough?

no. not more access. but also - not less.

even though i'm a pacifist, i think that access to firearms is important for the american ideal. when only the government and the bad guys have guns (and the two can very easily merge - look at africa) then the public needs to be able to defend themselves. The USA was founded on revolution against a tyrranical government. Its hard to take away the right to bear arms without tarnishing those ideals.

~d said...

(yes, I remember Wendy O Williams)
**WOOOO! Yes, here is to wine!

Kentucky Brat said...

Pink.. thank you.

I think its important to remember who we are.

I will be honest and say some (a lot) of American history makes me ill... but on the other hand, I am proud of those that stood up and said "I don't think so!" I would not want to think of myself as the part so engrossed in cash and possessions that I took advantage of my brothers and sisters. But I will align myself with the ones in the 'i don't think so' area real quick. Don't fuck with my family, don't fuck with my friends.

don't know Dirty Harry in person, but I have many friends that could be compared to him, and I dearly love each and every one of them.

Bugwit said...

Wow! Some dissent! Nice! :-)

Well, first, I don't advocate the removal of all guns from American society - just handguns. Beleive me, when war beaks out, handguns are nearly useless anyway. You can't hit anything farther than about 50 years with one.

Second, my point is that many weapons are ALREADY banned in America - machine guns, high explosives, anti-aricraft missiles - because they are too dangerous. Same goes for handguns, in my opinion. Own all the rifles you want.

Lastly, when the shit hits the fan in in places like Somalia, there doesn't seem to be any difficulty acquiring an AK47.

So the question was, Pinks, do you think increasing access to handguns would raise or lower the gun violence in England? It's pretty hard to argue that more gun would equal less violence. More nukes doesn't mean less nuclrear war does it?

And personally, I don;t care if I'm murdered by a handgun or a nuke. Either way, I'm dead. So ban them both.