Friday, April 03, 2009

Binghamton Rampage Leaves 13 Dead, 26 Wounded

Another stong argument for liberal "concealed carry" laws

More stirring and creepy evidence to support legalized "concealed carry laws" across the nation. The news reporting networks and other media are in an absolute tizzy about this today:
Binghamton Rampage Leaves 13 Dead, 26 Wounded
Think about it, people. It took only one heavily-armed and mentally defective idiot to wreak mass murder (13 dead at last count) against a group of American citizens, or prospective American citizens, who were innocently unarmed and completely vulnerable to this kind of mindless attack in a public place.

On the other hand, look what happened on Valentine's day 2007 at Trolley Square, where one lightly armed, concealed carry-permitted Ogden Hero held another well armed assassin at bay, in what could have been the worst of the Killer Rampage of that year, and obviously reducing the potential rampage.

We believe this massacre in Birmington could have been very well mitigated or stopped, if even a small proportion of the people had been packing heat at that New York Civic Association immigration traing center building.

One thing is clear. Once an event like this has occurred, the police show up mainly to count the bodies. Unarmed people always become the victims when all the guns are own by criminals and the criminally psychotic... and NOT by the law abiding lumpencitizens. It's up to every citizen to protect himself and his family. In events like this, every individual becomes "the first responder." When the Utopians prevent citizens from arming and protecting themselves, we'll continue to read about heart-breaking stories like this.

In spite of the public passion of modern socialists to craft the perfect Utopian society, we all have to dwell in reality. We live in a world inhabited by 6+ billion Homo Sapiens, whose animal genetics differ little from chimpanzees. And we already know how unpredictable and dangerous Chimpanzees can be .

When the shit comes down, it's up to each citizen to protect himself and his loved ones from his fellow "higher apes," we believe, until the cavalry (the police responder) arrives.

It's a jungle here on earth, people, regardless of what the "Utopians" suggest.

It's been that way for human beings since the stone age, at least.

So what say our gentle readers about all this?


TLJ said...

I haven't researched this, but Curm might be able to help with this one.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From
1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917,
1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945,
a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to
defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952,
20 million political dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to
1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979,
300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to
1977, one million educated people, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th
Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia
were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal
firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program
costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in.

List of 7 items:
- Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
- Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
- Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes,
44 percent)!
- In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms
are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding
citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and
criminals still possess their guns!
- While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed
drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals
now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

- There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and
assaults of the ELDERLY.
- Australian politicians are at a loss to explain now
public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort,
and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian
society of guns.

Native said...

I got mine. But the CC class is a joke. Some of the folks there were cycling the action on a standard semi-auto FOR THE FIRST TIME. They were promptly photographed & applications sent in. I know they got a permit.

That has to change.

Anonymous said...

One should not require a permit in order to defend ones selves.

One should simply act in accordance with the tenets of freedom, and allow the chips to fall where they may.

We are not concerned with the state becoming a menace worthy of an armed resistance.
Air superiority by the government ended the idea of a mass armed resistance, unless your arms include jets with missiles.
In any case, our government tends to do what we allow it to do.

what would jesus say said...

Who cares id a person is packing? It's the assault rifles that I cant see. They are bad for all.

danny said...

I agree with Rudi and with TLJ.

Svengali states a common misconception - that the government will always "out gun" the populace, thereby rendering an armed populace irrelevant. Only a few minutes' thought reveals that argument is nonsense.

Government consists of people. If the populace is armed, the "rulers" will always be subject to summary execution, regardless of their "collective" firepower. Mass firepower cannot destroy an entire populace, but an armed citizenry can always destroy a government by killing the people, one at a time, that comprise it.

This is why heavily armed countries, like Switzerland, have never been conquered, nor have they ever been in any danger of being.

QED. Thinking for 10 seconds can lead to taking a liberal positions. Thinking for any longer length of time has to make one a libertarian.

Anonymous said...

We disagree, Danny.

We do not delineate along the knee jerk political labels such as libertarian, etc.

We own rifles, shot guns, pistols, dynamite, swords, knifes, and a few antique military weapons unmentionable.

We also volunteered and served in the armed forces.

First, there is conceivable circumstance where we would not be fighting against the US government.
We would fight for the US government. And the US way of life.

All of the "Dale Gribbles of King of the Hill" in our country, i.e., Tim Mc Veighs, are clowns.

You wanna sit in a heavily armed compound while jets fly over head, go ahead.
We would be the ones in the jets.
Good luck on that.

Second, we are pro-carry.
When 5 of our companions go to town, there are usually at least 7 weapons amongst us. And a dozen clips.

Third, we do not distinguish in the US constitution between various "arms".
Rocket launchers, grenades, mortars, sawed off nuclear shoulder fired surface to air pocket knives?

To us these are all arms.

We don't carry because Nancy Pelosi is going to declared martial law indefinitely. We carry because the bad guys carry. And we are a steadier shot.

We are America.

ozboy said...

Sven, sounds like a Coke commercial!

Whoops, never mind, that was "We are the World"

I have this vivid fantasy of you and your armed to the teeth posse encountering the Lil Lord and his sweaty buddy Stu in the head at Angelos some night and blowing them away with all seven of your weapons a blazing away!

Just the fantasy alone gets you my vote for the Emerald City citizen of the year award.

Anonymous said...

Last week we were in a hurry on our way back from Taylors Canyon, headed to our home downtown, going west on 25th street.

As we started to enter the intersection at Grant to turn left on a yellow light, we paused to allow a man to hurry across the cross walk in front of us.

It was Mayor Godfrey, sans entourage, body guards, or even a jacket with a built-in holster.

He looked so happy, and kind of innocent; he looked up, smiled and waved, thanking me through gesture for the right of way, and for not mowing him down; for not mowing him down, the universe decrees he now owes us one small favor.

Life is fragile and precious; we wish him and his family well.

Arlene said...


You could have solved a lot of Ogden's problems with that little opportunity. Makes one wonder just how much you do love this town.

Anonymous said...

Killing Mayor Godfery would not solve problem one.
Regardless, we do not murder. We might kill when necessary, but we never murder.
Its a line deeply etched in stone.

Mayor Godfrey, like any elected figure, represents well the collective character of Ogden.

People always want their leaders to be more honest, stronger, wiser, better spoken, and cleverer than they are themselves; and also so with a societies gawds.

If you want a better mayor, look inside, and change yourself.

The Lovely Jennifer said...


Wanting a better mayor takes voting; I, Arlene and many others will continue to vote for the other guy. If more people get out and vote maybe the slim margin will be in favor of the other guy next time.


TLJ said...

RJ - 'scuse me, I should have said:

GETTING a better mayor takes voting ...


Anonymous said...

Who is this sainted other guy?
Anyone but Godfrey would not be a candidate.

Curmudgeon said...

"Anyone but X" is also, most times, poor campaign strategy. [Ask John Kerry how that works.] There are, of course, always people who will vote for "anybody but" in an election, but that's usually not enough to win. RSJ is right. To win, you need a candidate who can provide voters not moved by the "anybody but" appeal to vote for him, not just against the incumbent. The candidate has to be able to convince people that a vote for him would be the course of wisdom regardless of who his opponent is.

And to win, that candidate must also have sufficient cash to be competitive. Minimally funded insurgent campaigns occasionally work... but only very occasionally. That's why they make news. Most of the time, woefully underfunded candidates do not win because they haven't the wherewithal to get their message out effectively and consistently during the campaign.

ABG wasn't enough last time. It may not be if he runs again.

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved