Why We Continue to Have School Shootings?

Rob Morse asks the question: Why We Continue to Have School Shootings? It's a good question. We have known for a long time what will make our schools a less tempting target. We just have not been able to either convince the nay sayers, or to politically overcome them. Meanwhile, every gun owner cringes when another mentally unbalanced person takes to shooting up a school, because we know that the old, tired, and utterly useless bromides will be circulated again.  So, you want to hear the actual truth? Here it is:

We have not stopped these rampages because the news media and political special-interests feed on mass murder.

That sounds harsh. Would people really want children to die rather than to solve a problem in the first place?  However, Morse points out that the probability of being killed or injured in a school shooting is vanishingly small.  We could not afford to put a SWAT team in every school on the off chance that someone might decide to strike a particular school.  The other problem is that even knowing the solution, no one can guarantee that a shooter will never strike at a school again.  People are not that predictable.

So, who benefits from school shootings?  Have you ever heard the saying "If it bleeds, it ledes"?

...The next mass murderer is inspired by the media coverage given to the last mass murder. Today, the US news media gives these murderers a billion dollars of publicity after they kill. We even changed our language to describe them. “Celebrity murderers” and “celebrity violence” are the terms we invented to describe these killers and what they do. Psychologists and media experts said that a third or more of these mass murders could be stopped if we changed media coverage.

No doubt Morse and I will be accused of grossly overstating the case. Journalists don't have an agenda, they just want to keep the public informed.  Except that coverage always seems to sensationalize these maniacs.  Rather than turning away from obviously deranged people whose actions should be shielded for compassionate reasons, the media highlight them, making them "celebrities."  But they have done nothing to celebrate...unless, of course....the media is of the same mind.

Media coverage has gone beyond the public’s “need to know”. Instead, the media exposure actively promotes the next mass murder. Why would the networks inspire evil? I think the media is desperate in the face of declining credibility and their dwindling number of viewers. Many of the major networks will say anything to keep us watching and to support their political agenda.

Then there are the progressive politicians, and the go along to get along RINOs. Progressives have had a goal of disarming the average American for as long as the they have been operating on these shores. Why> Because as long as we have guns, we can resist the trash they keep shoving down our throats.

The average citizen doesn’t know that we already have 23 thousand firearms regulations on the books. Each law, each regulation, was described as essential for public safety, yet politicians failed to deliver on that promise each and every time.

Firearms prohibition hasn’t worked to stop violent crime or to stop mass murder. Gun-control fails where ever it is tried. Gun-control in the Ukraine and Russia are far stricter any legislation proposed in the United States, yet just a few months ago there was a mass school shooting in the Crimea.

All the wasted ink of legislation hasn’t kept blood off the floor. The political promises made in front of the TV cameras were hollow. Gun laws haven’t stopped the crazies and criminals from killing, so why do anti-gun Democrats propose more of the same failed ideas?

Progressives have always worked to undermine the idea of limited Government. Each school shooting brings calls for more gun-control. Destroying the Second Amendment is essential to the Progressive project because the Second Amendment is a constant rebuke to their primary goal of unlimited government power.

Read the whole thing, of course. Please also remember that if a politician does not trust you and me with a gun, he is probably not to be trusted himself. And if he can't be trusted himself or herself, maybe he or she should not be allowed near the levers of power? Just a thought.