Wednesday, September 13, 2006
In the World of the Unarmed, the Armed Maniac is King
At first, I said to myself: "Wait, this is Montreal! Canada! They don't have guns in Canada!
Stupid as it seems, there aren't supposed to be any guns among the beer-and-donut crowd in the Great White North. Something about their having descended from British Tories and French socialists, I'd guess.
So, you understand why I was skeptical about the veracity of this story, early on. A hockey stick-swinging incident would be more likely, I thought, except that it's a little early in the year for that kind of thing.
Seems someone, using what the uneducated call an "automatic rifle," shot up the Dawson College campus in Montreal. According to this story on Canada.com, as reprinted from the Montreal Gazette. This deranged young man, dressed to look like the Columbine killers, made his way to the campus' second floor cafeteria, then started shooting indiscriminately at the students crowded therein. He shot twenty people, six were injured critically. Sadly, one of the six later died at the hospital.
Early reports indicated that the deranged individual then took his own life, but later it came out that he was killed by police. I sincerely hope that the officer is not prosecuted.
After I reiterate that Canada has outlawed personal firearms for almost all individuals, I'm certainly going to point out that such laws place the law abiding individual at a severe disadvantage.
Since it's now apparent that the killer was shot by a police officer, one might ask how long it took for the police to arrive, and how many might not've been shot had the officers arrived sooner. Those kinds of questions come up at every shooting in memory: where were the police? Why didn't they get there sooner?
I'll go a (big) step farther. How many might not've been shot if a number of those in the cafeteria had been armed, and had trained themselves in the use of their weapons? How many of these kinds of incidents would just never happen because the prospective killer would have to expect armed resistance and would probably be killed before he got very far?
I recall, many years ago, a man entered a McDonald's in San Ysidro, Stalag California, with a semi-automatic rifle and started shooting people indiscriminately, including several children. I remember thinking: how little these parents must think of their children, to be so completely unable to protect them. Had even as few as one or two of these parents been armed and competent with his weapon, several lives would very likely have been saved.
The 9/11 highjackers would've failed miserably to take over the aircraft had a number of the passengers been armed. What a load of trouble that would've saved us! I'm very suspicious that government enacts all the anti-self-defense laws specifically so that there'll be victims, thereby reinforcing their psychotic fantasies that they are needed by us.
But, when we actually do need help, are they there? Not unless you happen to be near a donut shop or a strip club.
For that very reason, one of the things muggers, robbers, burglars and killers count on is unarmed victims.
For that very reason, we all owe it to ourselves and our families to be armed and capable of handling our weapons.
They've killed freedom! Those bastards!