As more elements emerge, some more considerations are in order.
- The church where the massacre took place had a “no gun” policy.
The perpetrator obviously knew that, not only because he was a relative of some of the churchgoers but because he would obviously prepare his assault.
When will people understand that such policies attract criminals? Which church do you think the aspiring mass murderer will pick: the one where he is sure to mow down people at pleasure, or the one where it is likely that fire will be returned more or less instantly, by people probably well trained in the use of firearms?
2. The perpetrator was chased, and wounded, by armed citizen.
It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Without the brave citizen resolutely taking action, the bastard would have been allowed to flee, killing who knows how many other people before the police finally takes him.
3. The perpetrator, though a former soldier, was not allowed to carry arms
Heck, this is just another example that gun control does not stop criminals. Gun control merely prevents the honest citizen from defending themselves.
And you know what angers me most? This time the liberal hysteria will die very fast, because everything in this tragedy points out to their idiocy. But let only one element work for them (say: the guy had a licence to carry) and all hell will break loose.
Thank God for president Trump and the new age of gun sanity that is finally (slowly) beginning.
The sad events in Las Vegas (a prayer for the victim is here in order) will, no doubt, move the abortion-cum-sodomy complex to try another push for gun control. I can easily imagine that the stupidest among the already stupid US bishops will follow them.
What neither the first nor the second group of intellectually and/or doctrinally challenged people realise is that the Country is now not only solidly marching in a pro gun direction, but is also less and less ready to swallow the aggressive fake narrative of the Nazi Libtards. This will, like all other recent occasions, translate in another defeat for them and another victory for freedom. The more controversy they create, the harder they will lose.
Ask the NFL.
Ideally, for us, we would have our most stupid US bishops embrace the seamless garment lie. When they do so, the Catholic population will realise, from their utter stupidity, how stupid their silence towards, or defence of, Amoris Laetitia is, then a bishop who can't make a difference between abortion and the natural right to defend oneself is clearly too dumb to be trusted in everything that has not been shouted for 2000 years before him.
Scream at pleasure, dear Libtards. Make some lio. Have the entire body of dumb V II, Amoris Laetitia bishops link their wagon to yours.
It will open the eyes of a lot of people.
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
We are not told if the Disciples were carrying open or concealed. I suspect they did both according to the occasion. On this particular occasion, only two out of eleven (Judas already gone, and he would not count anyway) were actually carrying. On other occasions they must have been more, because it is obvious that the Disciples here count the armed ones among them on that particular day.
Of these two, one would make a defensive use of his sword before long.
These swords were, methinks, like the Roman gladius: a short but lethal sword, easy to carry and to use for short quarters combat, and therefore very apt for a defensive urban use. They clearly weren’t daggers, either. The word sword is not equivocal.
Our Lord does not object to his disciples’ carrying in the least. Actually, he says to them they should carry more. No, actually I think he says all of them should carry. Their right to keep and bear arms should, very obviously, not be infringed. The Second Amendment is so very evangelical.
Thought I would mention this blatant disregard of Our Lord for any form of arm control and, in fact, strong encouragement to defensive carry.
I am sure Hillary & Co. are very disappointed.
Let us imagine that the attack in Nice had happened with, ceteris paribus, the gun laws and the attitudes of a traditionally gun-friendly US state like, say, New Mexico or Montana.
What would have happened is that dozens, possibly more than 100 people would have been able to shoot – and to shoot effectively, because well-trained – at the terrorist and/or at the truck’s tyres. A 1.7 km savage butcher run would have been all but impossible.
Instead, the terrorist was able to go around mowing people down for half an eternity, slaughtering or wounding almost 200 unprotected lambs; and was finally stopped by… armed policemen under a rain of bullets.
Guns in the hands of the right people save lives. It is absurd to prevent the good guys from carrying them. The bad guys will always get the weapons, because hey, they don’t care it’s illegal.
“But Mundabor, Mundabor! This is a Catholic blog! What is all this to do with Catholicism?”
It is, a lot.
We in Europe (and some even in the US) have forgotten the Catholic doctrine of Subsidiarity to the point where we consider it normal that one of the most elementary rights and duties of a man, self-protection and protection of those under his care, should be contracted out to people who will not be there when we need them fast, causing us to be taken down by the dozen – like in Paris in November or in Nice yesterday – without the possibility of a reaction.
Subsidiarity is important not only as an economics tool, but also as a moral one. As a man, and in lesser measure also as a woman, the right and duty to protect yourself and yours is, first of all, on you.
Not on the police. Not on the army. Not on the secret services. On you.
All these beautiful things (police, army, secret services, you name it) cannot but be an extension and integration of your fundamental right and duty, to meet the needs and cares of life starting from the first, smallest step: you.
Europe has had now a long tradition of statalism – certainly preceding socialism and communism – demanding that a bigger and bigger part of what is your fundamental right and duty be taken away for you, because Nanny knows best. We see the results now, as we are again confronted with entire minutes of senseless slaughter of wilfully unprotected men, women, children. But we saw them already in the past, where a small number of highly motivated, violent people was used to seize power in the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary. Imagine those same populations well-armed and ready to fight for their freedom and their faith, and the scenario suddenly becomes far more difficult, and very possibly impracticable. Movies like Red Dawn may be factually improbable, but they teach an important principle: a well-armed, trained and determined citizenship can crush every threat.
This is not a theoretical discussion. This is very real. Every armed good citizen could have stopped, yesterday, the deadly action far before the police came on the scene.
How much of yesterday’s dead and wounded realised this? Very, very few.
They chose to be put in the position of being slaughtered instead.
The ultra-liberal actor Sean Penn (a pity it was the wrong brother to die, if one had to die…) once attacked his then-wife (ultra-liberal actors tend to not be satisfied with one) with a baseball bat.
I do not doubt he, like many other unstable Hollywood nut cases, considers law-abiding citizen who love guns or simply believe in individual freedom violent, dangerous people.
I do not know his opinion about banning baseball bats, or giving them only to people who pass a mental health check.
That Hollywood cretins have become people considered worthy of consultation in social matters tells you everything you need to know about the decomposition of Western societies.