Thursday, April 03, 2014

Clark County Redux: Besides the shooter, who's responsible fo the Ft. Hood shootings?

The Clark County Commissioners were wrong yesterday, particularly in the face of the illustrative example of yet another mass shooting in Ft. Hood.

Yesterday was something of a replay of the Hassan terrorist attack some 5 years ago.

Why?

What were the failures of the first Ft. Hood shooting?  What should have happened then that didn't?  What didn't happen that should have?  What changes should have been made?

Where does the responsibility lay?

What about the concept of actually LEARNING from our history so we WON'T repeat it?

After the other two most publicized random shootings on military bases, what could have been done to stop this in the future?

The possibilities kicked around included allowing officers and NCO's to be armed around the clock, in and out of uniform.

Some are opposed to that.  One talking head this morning rather foolishly claimed that "guns cause suicide," when in fact, the gun didn't "cause" anything.

The left, of course, wants our soldiers and government employees to be targets: save for a misguided effort to repeal the Second Amendment (As if that would do anything to those who ignore our laws anyway) the leftist nutters have no realistic plan to address security issues, either in Clark County OR military installations.

Locally, they're giddy, having perceived some sort of "victory" over the hated conservatives on the county commission.

But those who fail to offer up a solution to the problem always, always, always overlook the obvious: in these environments where people are slaughtered, there is a very good likelihood that the slaughter would not have taken place had those serving as targets been able to shoot back.

Had any of those ignorants been in one of those buildings yesterday... or in that school at Sandy Hook... or in the first building at Ft. Hood 5 years ago... what would THEY have done? How would they have stopped the killing?

Don't know.  I've yet to see a gun-grabber explain it

I don't go anywhere without my .45.  If I'm in a county building on business and some nutburger walks in and starts shooting, would these same people throw themselves at the shooter knowing they'd likely get killed in the process?  Or would they show gratitude if I pulled the hated .45 and removed the threat to save their worthless lives?

Armed morons have walked into our schools and government buildings and military posts and killed people.  And in each and every one of those situations, the common thread was that the shooters knew their victims were unarmed.

When these things happen, it's always a failure.  A failure of leadership... a failure of policy.

Military or civilian government... the failure is a failure to anticipate the worst while clearly hoping for the best, only to be repeatedly disappointed and bathed in the spilled blood of failure.

As giddy as the local fringe-left nutters are, they would be the first to savage the conservatives on the Board if we have another shooting situation where someone can just walk in and start firing... because, as we all know, when seconds count... the cops are only minutes away.

Here in Clark County, we're essentially begging for this situation.

The commissioners made the wrong decision yesterday when they caved to the purely political decision not to allow their employees to be armed at work, particularly absent any other armed protection that would be in place instead... such as armed security or police.
To all of the naysayers, including the total idiots quoted in this article, I would ask you this:

It's your office or classroom that slimeball is going to be busting into.  You know he's coming.  You heard it.  You heard the gunfire, the screams, the noises, the yelling.  You've got 20 babies or 12 other people in your office who are screaming, crying, running around.  You're heroic; you would give your life to protect them.

You now have a choice in this hypothetical:  You can shield as many of your children or fellow staff as possible with your body and get killed first... hopefully before you see him slaughter any of the rest.

OR:

You can pull your weapon the moment you hear the threat, wait for the door to your classroom or office to get broken in, or shot in... and then blow that unsuspecting Son of a Bitch to Mars.

The idea that teachers or county employees are too stupid to do this is bizarre.  It's amazing what someone can do when their lives and the lives of others depend on it.
Here's the thing: the same morons opposed to this would certainly be among the first to blame the commissioners who, they would tell us, "let this happen."

Of course, like those whining about the legal notices they never read being moved to the Reflector, they offer no solutions to KEEP it from happening... just stand up to assign the blame.

The commissioners made the wrong call yesterday.

They allowed the Constitutional rights of county employees to be violated by fiat.  They allowed an insurance company to come in and strip the county employees, who otherwise have no armed security, to be forced into a defenseless posture.

Why?

Because of a political decision made by others who don't live here and who won't have to live with the consequences of this decision.

And the idea that keeping weapons out of the county's work environs would reduce liability is insane.  Because one of the FIRST things that would happen in the event of another Ft. Hood here locally is that the county would be sued into bankruptcy because of the lack of adequate security.

Either way, the county and the costs would be the same, if not higher now because the victim's families could complain that the county HAD legal remedies... namely, allowing their employees to be armed... but refused to do so under threat from their insurers as if that threat somehow supersedes the Constitution.

Who's responsible for the Ft. Hood shootings and deaths?

Find out who's responsible for the policies that led to the troops being little more than ducks at a shooting gallery.  Find out who didn't change anything... or change enough of anything... after the last two random slaughters... And that's going to be your man.

2 comments:

Jack Buckmeir said...

from what I understand, the shooter was never in combat in Iraq - he was a truck driver, not that he didn't ever see shit, or never felt threatened, but it's hard for me to understand what motivated him.

Lew Waters said...

When they remove all of the guns around Obama and his family, then I'll consider disarming (not necessarily actually doing it, mind you)

When I was in, long ago, it amazed me how I was trusted with a weapon and live ammo in Vietnam, but in Germany and Ft. Bragg, I wasn't.

It made no sense then nor does it now.

The notion of banning guns to make people safe is a pipe dream, all it does is make them targets for nutcases and crazies.

We don't know everything about Ivan Lopez just yet, but is more likely that the medications he was prescribed are more at fault. That and HIPAA Laws preventing someone's mental condition from being included in background checks.

There are several causes in play here, but the gun is just a tool, not a cause.