Parkland High School: Another Mass Shooting. Another Series of Excuses

Another mass shooting. More innocent lives taken, This time is was ordinary school kids. Young men and women, boys and girls really, just starting their lives. Again, it's the ole story about people "suspected" this or that individual was up to something, or that there were warning signs and yet no body acted. In this case, it seems that his classmates all knew. So did many of his teachers and apparently the neighbors too; Oh, and the police apparently were familiar with this kid but failed to do a follow up. That's the beauty of hindsight. It's always so crystal clear, yet it's the here and now that we always seem to have trouble with.

Of course, there are always the chatterboxes on TV or the radio with their "fill-in-the-blank" analysis (there's nothing like "instant expertise". Just add crisis--real or imitation--- and stir the pot vigorously). Naturally, you have those wanting to blame the weapon, as if it's the incarnation of evil and possesses the hapless soul of whoever touches it. If only we ban all guns, all the carnage will all magically disappear, like the knife attacks in China, machete attacks in the UK, or the recent rash of attacks using trucks and vans in France and Germany, and the countless bombings! I suppose a fork, or hammer, or rock, or pointy stick will do the job just as well don't you?

Mass shootings have become almost the norm, going back to Columbine High School, which is considered the "standard" by those who study such things, including would-be shooters themselves. More recently we had the mass shooting in Las Vegas, of which we still know nothing (I guess officials are still having trouble coming up with a believable narrative given the number of times they've changed their story). Now we have a new mass murderer. This time the suspect in question, Nikolas Cruz, who was allegedly on some sort of behavior modification drugs (as were the others we're told), had been expelled and sought out revenge for the dastardly deed! I guess he couldn't put on his big boy pants and toughed it out huh?

So Cruz plotted his revenge down to the nth degree, from his choice of weapon, an AR-15 semi-automation rifle, which because of its designed, is often misidentified as an "assault rifle"; presumably for sensationalism effect, to his means of transport (an Uber driver), to the appropriate time his cold and cowardly rampage would start. The thing, again, that I find so interesting is how unsurprised everyone was when the shooter was identified.

When I was in school, way back in the 1960's and 1970's, some thought the world was spinning apart. America was a divided nation. There was the Civil Rights Movement along with the Watts and Harlem riots among others, the Vietnam War and with it, the anti-war protests. There were the sit-ins and campus occupations, "love-ins", and mass concerts. There was the Chicago Police Riot and the murders at Kent State. There was the "La Causa" and the United Farm Workers led by Cesar Chavez.

With all this came church fire bombings (and several deaths), the attacks on the "Freedom Riders" (and the murders of three young activists by the KKK in the deep South), the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr, and Malcolm X. We had international and domestic terrorist groups. Some were mainly political, like the PLO, Black September, the Baader-Meinhof Group (aka the Red Army Faction), the Weathermen, the American Indian Movement, and the SLA. Some were politically and racially driven like the Black Panthers, the KKK and Neo-Nazis. A few were more socially oriented like the Feminist (or "Women's Lib") Movement, Gay Pride, or the senior's activist group, the "Gray Panthers".

Despite all of this, I don't recall any mass shootings (with the possible exception of Kent State, and that was by the Ohio National Guard). I recall seeing a lot of posturing by groups brandishing rifles and pistols. There were millions of recently returned veterans; many of whom feeling rejected and angry. Some of these returning veterans were suffering from some form of PTSD (Post Traumatic Shock Disorder). All were highly trained to fight and kill, and yet there were no public mass shootings. Of course, there were a number of pretty brutal beatings by various police departments as a result of some protest, but no mass shootings, and certainly none involving school children. Why is that you think?

Personally, I think there are a number of reasons, but the most important of which was discipline, be it in school or at home. First off, when you went to school, you were expected to learn. That meant doing what the teachers asked you to do. It also meant respecting your teachers, not ignoring them; not giving them any lip; not threatening them and absolutely not trying to start a fight with them. At the same time, it also meant respecting the students and certainly not teachers having sex with them. That's the wrong kind of education!

In addition, students respected each other enough not to disrupt class. If you didn't want to learn, fine. Just don't try to drag others down with you. When you failed to do as asked you were sent to the principal's office. Usually this was bad news because it often meant that your parents were notified (more on that in a moment). At other times, it meant a whoop on your behind by the gym teacher with their custom made paddle, and that generally got your attention (and it also meant that your parents were definitely going to be notified).

In most cases, nothing the school could do was as bad as having to face your parents when you got home. The punishment was often more psychological and involved things like being grounded (which meant no going outside) and/or no friends over, no TV or phone access. Sometimes, it meant sentencing you to your room, etc. In some cases it meant some form of corporal punishment (there were, sadly, also instances of rather brutal beatings by a few which would be worthy of jail time today). Worse of all, I think, for many individuals it was the disappointed expressions by their parents. Of course, there was those who simply didn't care which seems to be near epidemic these days.

Nevertheless, respect for others was expected from and by everyone, and along with that came discipline. I am not talking about lockstep conformity, but order and following school guidelines for behavior. Because everyone showed others respect, and there was discipline in the classroom, there were rarely fights in school or on campus. There was no need for metal detectors. No one was bringing guns. Kids weren't trying to cut off the hands of other students in shop class. No one was attacking the teachers or running amuck, and yet guns and other weapons were readily available (and with far less legal restrictions).

Since those days, discipline has gone out of the schools. Attacking a fellow student or teacher may mean getting expelled, which is simply an early vacation. Disrupting class means that everyone will be just as likely to fail the test as you are. In fact, education has been repeatedly dumbed down across the board to accommodate these students. I suppose someone figured out that if the material was to far over the head of some student, they'd get frustrated and decide to act out and keep anyone from learning, so just dumb it down. Just as gangs run the prisons, petty thugs and Dillinger wannabes try to run the schools. At least, that's sure how it appears to me!

At home, parents have largely all but stopped parenting. They've ceded control of their children to the State. Meanwhile, there is little or no respect for anyone; not to teachers, to parents, to authorities, or to the public in general. There are no consequences for their actions. Many grow up with a sense of entitlement; that somehow the world owes them just for breathing. Instead of discipline, there is simply medication to control their behavior, and when they get older, medication turns into drugs---be it prescription or street.

To make matters worse, most of these kids walk or sit around with their face in a "Smartphone" or on a laptop. They live increasingly in a digital world; one which includes very violent games that desensitizes players to scenes of carnage and death (and worse, believe there is a reset button which brings "people" back to life...as if nothing ever happened). These children (and adults) lose or never develop social skills and the ability to interact with other individuals. They don't know history. They don't know ethics or civics. They don't understand how to rationally discuss topics, especially with those who may disagree with them.

So what do they do? How do they react? They panic. They act out with violence. They try to disrupt what's going on around them because they can't cope with different opinions. They protest...be at school, at an event...or on streets and highways (then they get upset because people don't stop and coddle their "outrage"). They demand no "free speech" or open forums (seriously). Is it any wonder some of these same individuals become violent? It's what they've been conditioned by society to do.

As for the argument about guns and the Second Amendment, I've heard people argue that the Founders didn't intend for ordinary citizens to have guns, except for hunting and self protection in the wilds. Now that we've become "civilized", and can buy our food at the local supermarket, who needs guns? As for self protection, we have the police. We have pepper spray. We have whistles. Besides, perhaps they just need money or whatever for their drug or booze addiction. Perhaps they had a crappy childhood. Maybe their religion tells them it's ok and we're suppose to go accept it. If we just give them whatever they want, then maybe they won't murder us or brutalize us...too badly. Yeah, right.

You and I have a inherent right to protect ourselves, our possessions, and the lives of others if threatened with serious harm. We do not have a duty to forfeit any of these, even at the risk of terminating the bad guy's life. That is, of course, my own opinion, but I won't hesitate for a fraction of a second. If, on the other hand, you're fine with whatever happens, be it being robbed of your money, your possessions, your life or that of your family and/or friends, that's your call.
If you are a woman and you're ok with being raped and/or beaten to a pulp, that's also your call...but don't start whining about it or demanding that others do the same thing just to make yourself feel better about your decision. As the old saying goes, "if guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns" is absolutely true. Don't be naive enough to expect the bad guys to turn in their guns. They will always have what they want and what they need. If you're unarmed, then so much the better for them.

Also, our Founding Fathers understood that government---all government---was not to be trusted. Given human nature, power tends to corrupt no matter how good the intentions. As Lord Acton once said, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". It was the absence of guns which made the despots of modern Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia possible. Just like in distant past, it often was the absence of adequate weapons which made tyrants possible. Our Founding Fathers wanted us to have the ability not just to hunt, or defend ourselves from the lowlifes of the world, but most of all, from government (perhaps the lowest of the lowlifes).

Some may argue that we have the police and/or military for that. Well yeah...and who do you think they work for? The government. Very few (in the beginning) will stand with the people in the event of a revolt or revolution, and while each take an oath to uphold the Constitution, also included in that oath is a duty to follow the orders given to them. It won't be easy for many to decide which of the two they should follow. America, as most of you all should already know, is not the country it was intended to be. We're an Oligarchy; a plutocracy with an ever growing police state mentality. The notion of a democratic Constitutional Republic is long gone. It's just not reality not matter how badly we want to believe. Americans may find that the day to restore the intent of the Founders is closer than they think.

On a personal note, I can understand the need to curtail full auto weapons (which an AR-15 is not) without a special permit (and even then, they must be keep at a secure site such as a police station or armory), as well as restricting body armor (not to many bears or moose shoot back), full auto conversion kits and "bump stocks", armor piercing shells, again, without certain restrictions and permits. As it now stands, new guns must be registered. This includes a background check for any criminal or mental health issues. However, as we've seen, too often the system fails at this stage and those who shouldn't have a gun get one.

Until a full record check can be completed, no weapon should ever leave the store. The same goes with pre-owned rifles and pistols. This may hurt used gun dealers but it would add another layer of safety. Perhaps dealers of used guns can work out arrangements with local gun store owners to store the item with them until the background check is completed (alternatively, with the local armory or police since they're doing part of the background check anyway). However, undermining our 2nd Amendment is the wrong thing to do, and may lead down a path we don't want to tread. Even without guns, people will find other lethal means to do harm. Meanwhile, let's start restoring some discipline back into the schools and respect back into society.


Parkland high school shooting: At least 17 killed, suspect in custody, Florida sheriff says


Knife-wielding attackers kills 29, injure 130 at China train station


Another Machete Attack in the UK


Attack in Paris

The Las Vegas Massacre: A New Argument for Gun Control?

Well, it didn't take long for the anti-gun group start baying at the moon following the recent gun attack at a outside concert, the Route 91 Harvest Festival, in Las Vegas. Before we get into that, let's recap what we know thus far. The shooter, a 64 year old real estate investor and high stakes gambler by the name of Stephan Paddock opened fire from two adjoining rooms that he rented at the Mandalay Bay Casino and Hotel a few days before the attack. The lethal episode played out over approximately horrific ten minutes, with Paddock using two semi automatic rifles which had been converted using a simple-to-use "bump stock" conversion kit, which can be bought almost anywhere guns and/or gun supplies are sold. In addition, the shooter had set up several surveillance cameras and a monitor in order to watch for anyone approaching his rooms. When it was over, some 59 individuals were dead and 527 were wounded, making this the deadliest mass shooting since Wounded Knee in December of 1890.

Paddock had been staying at the hotel for several days prior, while the three day long concert, which covered a 15 acre concrete lot, took place almost directly across from his rooms. During that time, Paddock lugged some ten suitcases full of guns into each room, along the hundreds of rounds of ammo and two shooter platforms. Despite this, no one associated with the hotel noticed anything suspicious: not the cleaning crew who came in to changes sheets or tidy up the room. Not room service which bought up meals. Not other guests. No one apparently saw anything out of the ordinary.

It appears that just moments before the shooting started, Paddock knocked out a window in each room (presumably using a hammer), and from a nearly perfect advantage point, positioned himself on the shooter platform set up in each room and opened fire on the unsuspecting crowd below which was enjoying the last set of the event. In video recordings, you can clearly hear the rattling of the converted rifles with several quick bursts in rapid succession. As people began to be hit, the crowd, which seemed momentarily dumbfounded, realized what was happening and began to disperse. Ironically, while most of the spectators simply dropped their chairs, coolers, blankets and whatever else they brought and ran while others either just stood there and others walked away as bullets sprayed all around them.

Many in the crowd immediately called 911 to report an active shooter (and in several cases, reports of a second shooter came in): some even providing details such as floor location. These individuals maintain that there was shots coming from the second window and they could see two sets of muzzle flashes; they also claim that there was a distinct difference in sound between the guns. One had a duller sound while the other was higher pitched as if it was a different caliber. When the police arrived, their primary attention was moving spectators to safety as quickly as possible (as hard as it is to believe, many were standing completely upright and casually walking away while a few stopped to watch). Some individuals came forward to report that just prior to the concert starting, a female, accompanied by a male, confronted several of the attendees and told them that they were going to die that night. Both individuals were escorted away by security and released.

Nevertheless, officers made their way as cautiously as possible to the 32nd floor. When they reached Paddock's room, they used a standard ram to force entry. However, when they were able to finally burst in, they found Paddock already dead on the floor; the result of an apparent suicide, with a pistol laying just above the right side of his head. A canvas of the room revealed 18 guns, ample ammunition, and two shooter platforms. In addition, they found where Paddock had set up surveillance cameras inside and outside of his rooms, along with monitor so that he could monitor the entire situation. At Paddock's home, which he shared with his live-in girlfriend, authorities found additional firearms---approximately 23---plus explosives. As for his girlfriend, Marilou Danley, she had taken a flight back home to the Philippines. Paddock had also wire transferred over $100,000.00 to her just days before and paid cash (just over $14,000) for a new car for her.

Now, as if this wasn't bad enough, what has happened since is even more intriguing. The terrorist group ISIS, posted on their website that they were responsible for the attack. They added that Paddock had been converted to their brand of extremist Islam. However, Paddock's family and friends refuted that. They said that aside from gambling, Paddock was a quiet unassuming individual with no vices. He wasn't much of a drinker and didn't do drugs. They added that he was unpolitical and didn't even own or like guns. In addition, he didn't have the interest or technical wherewithal to do any type of gun conversation, set up surveillance equipment or knew how to make bombs. Finally, according to family and friends, this type of behavior was completely out of character of the person they knew, and added that he was basically a "boring guy" with a knack for numbers.

In response to their denial of any political leanings, ISIS took the rare step of reposting their claim on their website and added that Paddock had been to the Middle East several times over the last years, where his indoctrination and training was completed (there is some indication that Paddock and possibly his girlfriend took a cruise a year ago which included a port of call in the region). Meanwhile, Paddock's girlfriend has returned to the US for questioning. As an aside, the Philippines have a large, mostly rural, Muslim population are currently engaged in a guerilla war with the government in addition to a long standing Maoist insurgency. Of late, ISIS has become involved in the conflict. I suspect that police, FBI, and ATF officials are going to be very interested in her responses, especially with respect to any changes in his personality, his recent purchases and trips, new acquaintances, unaccounted for absences, and any large money transfers. After all, for someone who didn't like guns, he managed to acquire quite a collection, not to mention rounds of ammo. Plus, one would expect that there some basic arms training as well.

However, at this point, authorities haven't been able to identify any motivation for the shooting, or account for Paddock's ability to haul all these weapons, ammo to his rooms, in ten suitcases, all the way up the 32nd floor (no easy task given the weight) and avoid detection for days, as well as being able to set up surveillance cameras and a monitor. Heck, I can't even seem to take the soap without housekeeping knowing. I suppose that over the next days and perhaps even weeks or months, new information will become available. Of course, given the spin that the corporate controlled media puts on news coverage, we need to take what they spin...err...report with a generous helping of salt.

Meanwhile, as I alluded to at the beginning, gun control advocates haven't missed a beat in pointing out how we need greater gun control, up to and including prohibiting gun ownership (or requiring guns be stored at the police department and checked in and out like you would do books at a library. In addition, there are demands to require that all gun purchases or acquisitions (such as inheritances or bought at yard sales, gun shows or flea markets) regardless of being new or used. Perhaps not unexpectedly, these same individuals are also calling for prohibiting "bumper stocks" and all other gun modification devices, along with kits to build "silencers" or mufflers, along with restricting magazine capacities as well as certain types of ammo. From their perspective, taking away guns are the only way to prevent gun violence. The police have, for years, offered special events to either turn in guns in exchange for coupons or some other prize, as well as occasionally buying the guns back. After the guns are surrendered, they are checked to see if they're stolen or used in a crime, they are destroyed. Of course, common sense will tell you that the bad guys aren't likely to be standing in line to sell back their guns. The end result will be unarmed and mostly defenseless citizens facing off against armed thugs. Sorry, that's not the type of situation I want to be in, nor for any of my family or friends.

Now, while I'm a strong supporter of our 2nd Amendment, which was intended to protect us from the government in the event it become tyrannical, corrupt and/or fails to adhere to the Will of the People (you know, kinda like nowadays). The 2nd Amendment was meant to be our "stay free" card and legal means to remove a corrupt government by force if necessary in the event it tries to ignore or usurp the Constitution or Bill of Rights (again, ditto). Meanwhile, in addition to preserving our nation and self-defense, many people use guns for hunting or target practicing, which is a good thing I think.

However, I do see a possible problem with conversion kits which turn semi-automatics (which are completely legal) to essentially the equivalent to machine guns (which are legal, but very restricted). I mean, do you really need a "machine gun" to shoot rabbits or quail? Ok, perhaps a bad example. But seriously, is that what you need to hunt deer or elk? Maybe you just want it to target practice or simply to have. It might make for a great weapon for home defense, but I'll take a pump shotgun any day. There's nothing like the sound of that slide to change a person's mind. What about "silencers" or mufflers? Is there a reason you don't want the other squirrels not to hear? Maybe it's to help protect you from the gun's noise, but you can buy ear plugs for that. Maybe you fantasize about being an secret agent or double naught assassin cum international person-of-mystery (hey, I'm not judging). Frankly though, I don't know what you'd want a "silencer" or muffler for. Maybe some of you can let me know.

In addition, some of the individuals who are pushing for revised gun control laws are arguing for a cap on the number of guns and amount of ammunition individuals should be able to own, including registering the type and quantity of ammo purchased similar to how guns are bought and registered. Paddock reportedly purchased "thousands" of rounds of ammunition, mostly .308 and .223 calibers, going back to 1982, in addition to the small arsenal he had with him at the hotel and at home. While reports differ, most seem to indicate that Paddock owned between 47 and 53 guns. He brought 23 weapons with him to the hotel. In addition, he had purchased 33 guns over the last 12 months. So, obviously this begs the question---should there be a limit on the number of guns and ammo that an ordinary citizen can own? Or perhaps instead, should there be a cap as to the type of guns or ammunition someone can own? What do you think?

So, again America struggles to understand what drove an otherwise average older rich white guy to want to commit mass murder. Perhaps we'll have a clearer idea as to what motivated Paddock in the days and weeks to come, but it's just as likely that we'll never really know and may be left with suppositions and theories from so-called "experts" (his girlfriend, Marilou Danley, has told authorities that over the past few months, he seemed like he was mentally and physically "deteriorating"). Certainly, despite the tragedies and losses of life, there were many examples of courage too from police officers and ordinary people who were either attending the concert like everyone else or just simply nearby and decided to act. For now though, we just have to become more vigilant of our surroundings, while remembering to scope out possible exit routes wherever we will be spending any length of time, be it a movie, restaurant, a mall, or public event.


How the police zeroed in on the Las Vegas gunman



Who Was Stephen Paddock? The Mystery Of A nondescript 'Numbers Guy'



What guns were used in the Las Vegas shooting?