What you need to know about Binghamton shootings

April 4, 1:17 PMGun Rights ExaminerDavid Codrea

Previous Next

9 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

(AP Photo/WBNG-TV)

We've all seen the news about the Binghamton massacre. I followed it myself in real time yesterday on my online journal, The War on Guns, posting updates as reader/commentators there did the same.

First, we don't know if the Taliban claim is true or merely Baituallah Mehsud giving yet one more reason why he deserves to be exterminated for being the evil vermin that he is.

So let's focus on what we do know:

The attack took place in a "gun free zone". John Lott properly asks:

When will this simple fact about gun-free zones become part of the news coverage itself?

Despite official and media emphasis on the police arriving "within two minutes" of receiving the 911 call:

Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers.

An hour. Some will no doubt caution that a blind police charge into the building could well produce more casualties. Life doesn't work like Hollywood movies.

True enough. I'm merely pointing out facts that ought to be considered in the mix of things, and the facts are, these same police have no duty to protect individuals--that is, they incur no liability for failing to protect them. And these same police who cannot protect individuals would enforce the "no gun zones" rule and arrest any who chose to bear arms there for their own protection.

I also noted yesterday in my WarOnGuns coverage that MSNBC's "FBI Profiler" Clint Van Zandt derided the notion of armed citizens protecting themselves, saying that was a job for the police. So, Clint, how did that work out for everyone?

Naturally, we can see where the gun-grabbers intend to take this.

From New York Governor David Paterson:

"When are we going to be able to curb the kind of violence that is so fraught and so rapid that we can't even keep track of the incidents?"

What "solutions" will he propose? You tell me.

Then we have the Brady Campaign:

Today's mass shooting in Binghamton is just the latest wake-up call reminding us that we must do something to stop the gun violence in our country... The laws on the books aren't getting the job done. Now is the time to take effective steps to prevent gun violence.

And don't forget the Bradys rate New York as "6 out of 50 states." But that's not enough. It's never enough.

You see, in New York, a person needs a permit to purchase a handgun, it must be registered and they must be licensed.  Another permit is required to carry a handgun concealed (with another, more exclusive one for NYC), and it may not be carried in a "gun free zone,"  law enforcement excepted.  So what new edict could the Bradys propose--besides banning private ownership of handguns?  And we've seen how "effective" that's been in Mexico.

There's one last thing you need to know, the sentiment from the undisguised left. While their more "moderate" (on the surface) brethren make no secret of wanting to blame American gun rights, and thus indirectly American gun owners who refuse to give them up, loons like "angry young man" cut to the chase and blame us directly:

The surprising thing about MSNBC's coverage is they are questioning everyone they have on whether this was an act specifically against immigrants. If so, a right-wing terrorist is finally getting some broad notice as a right-wing terrorist, after so many attacks have been pretty much swept under the rug by the mainstream media. Former hostage rescue expert Clint Van Zandt even related the killings to an increase in anger in America--which I hope is eventually connected by the mainstream media to right-wing fanatics like Rush and Beck who've been fanning its flames.

Such creatures exist.  They hate Americans with different cultural, religious and political convictions. If they could, they would use the force of the state to bend you to their will--or else.  What more do you need to know?