Investigations into four deadly criminal attacks over the past few days have yielded “few answers,” Matt Pearce of The Los Angeles Times declared in yesterday’s “Nation Now” report.
“If you bundled the attacks all together into one brutal event, it would have been the worst massacre since Adam Lanza walked into an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., last December,” Pearce observed in his breathless lede.
The incidents he cites merit examination, as the implications and conclusions that some will draw from them will be not bode well for self-defense advocates.
The first rampage was by a pharmacist in Phoenix who killed his next door neighbors and then himself over barking dogs. The thing is, he was known by his ex-wife to have a violent and out-of-control temper, and she is a psychiatric nurse. The other thing is, he used a shotgun, that is, Joe Biden’s weapon of choice for home defense. The answer here has nothing to do with banning guns or casting mental health blanket dragnets, but rather with the reality that anyone whose dangerous actions and behaviors have proven they can’t be trusted with a gun has also proven they can’t be trusted without a custodian.
The second example centered on a deranged illegal Chinese immigrant who butchered his cousin’s family with a knife in the “gun control” haven of Brooklyn. The answer here, which should be obvious, is certainly not imposing more edicts making it even harder for good people to defend themselves.
The third reference, about a man in Texas “accused of killing his mother, aunt and three other people,” tells us all we need to know in the headline: “Suspect in Texas killing spree … had long criminal history.”
That made the killer a “prohibited person,” forbidden by law to possess a gun.
The pattern repeated itself in a multiple murder incident in South Carolina, where 27-year-old Brian Sweatt “broke into his girlfriend’s parents’ house [and] fatally shot her, her parents and two children living there and himself.” Unsurprisingly, “Sweatt had a lengthy arrest record that dates back nearly a decade,” meaning he, too, was prohibited by law from owning a gun.
The answers to all of these killings aren’t as difficult to decipher as Pearce’s headline would have readers believe. Unfortunately, they don’t fit the “legitimate” news media’s “blame guns” narrative. Nor do they advance the political establishment’s agenda to exploit situations government policies enable in order to make gun ownership more difficult for people who aren’t criminals and crazies.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers,” author Thomas Pynchon wrote in his classic 1973 novel, “Gravity’s Rainbow.”
For those interested in manipulating public opinion, that’s a basic misdirection ploy.
UPDATE: Dave Workman weighs in.
If you’re a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won’t find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (Dan) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.”
The antis are coming at us from all angles. There’s too much for one person to even keep up with, let alone effectively respond to. The latest GUNS Magazine “Rights Watch” column is online, and you can read it before the magazine hits the stands. Click here to read “They’ve Got Us Surrounded!”