July 24, 2012

• Batman Shooting

  I wanted to say a few words about the shooting that occured in Colorado during a showing of the Batman 3 movie.  It is quite understandable that people are getting hyped up over this, but not all of the reactions to this tragedy are good. 

  First of all, I never planned on going to see that movie, because I thought the first two were just mediocre.  I like most of the animated features which DC releases, but I have been consistently disappointed with the quality of their movies.  That being said, even after this shooting I would still go and see the movie if it was something that I wanted to see.  I believe that the odds of this happening again are low.  Supposedly the cops are going to study the Batman comics in order to “understand the mind of the killer” or some such rot.  To be fair, it is worth noting that the cops are in the dark, because so far no motive has been established, and no drugs or medications were involved.  The fact that he went into a Batman showing to choose his victims is the only lead they have as to his motives.  But to me, and anyone familiar with Batman, the idea that his shootings were somehow inspired by Batman are ridiculous.  It is a well established fact that Batman hates guns.  He carries around a multitude of devices in order to avoid having to use guns.  He doesn’t even like to touch guns.  I have also never seen him kill anyone no matter how much they had it coming (although that doesn’t mean he never has). 

  To suggest that Batman inspired the killings is asinine.  If anything he may have chosen a theater where Batman was playing because he knew it would be packed out, or he may have chosen it at random.  I say “may” because we really have no idea what the story is behind this guy.  We know that he was a succesful neuroscience student, and that there was no history of drugs or psychotic episodes, neither was there any evidence of medication abuse or withdrawal involved.

  My theory is that this whole incident was staged by the Obama administration, or by one of the international left wing groups that pulls his strings (like the Buildaburgers or Free Masons).  It is far too convenient that a mass shooting like that occurs at the same time as the Obama administration is considering signing a UN gun ban treaty.  If Obama signs the treaty, it would certainly kill his reelection campaign, unless something happens to make people more open to it. 

  Usually when killings occur there is a motivation.  Sometimes it’s a sane person with an emotional or ideological motivation, and sometimes it is a lunatic with an irrational motivation, but sane or insane, there is always a motive.  The Virginia Tech shooter was insane.  He was an autistic guy who recently got off his meds, but he still left a note before he did it.  Anders Brevig, the mass shooter in Norway, was politically motivated.  He made his motives very clear, and has spoken of them freely since his incarceration.  As of yet, no one has been able to discover what motivated James Holmes, nor have they been able to prove his insanity. 

  Of course liberals have already used this tragedy as part of their ongoing campaign for gun control.  I have found that liberals fall into two basic categories, the leaders and the followers.  I would say that the gross majority of liberals are followers, and the leaders are their politicians/rulers (not every left wing government comes to power through elections).  The followers have a variety of motivations which cause them to be liberal or to view things in a certain way, most of them emotional, but the primary motive of the left wing leadership is power and control, or control as a means to power.  When a problem or presumed problem occurs, the liberal followers generally latch onto whatever solution their leaders propose. 

  There is a right wing solution to mass shootings and criminal activity.  A right wing solution would be to require everyone to carry guns.  Penn Jilette has proposed that all women be required to carry pink guns in their purses.  This would do a great deal to prevent robbery and rape.  Criminals are far less likely to rob someone in a neighborhood where everyone has guns.  Why?  Because criminals prefer easy victims, and if the victim has a gun then that equalizes things, and if there are other citizens around with guns then that makes the situation hopeless for the criminal.  A mass shooter will not be able to get far if he tries to gun down a room full of armed people.  He might get off a few shots but he will receive many more in return.  Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not going to deter criminals, in fact it will encourage them as their pool of potential victims will be enlarged.

  There is a reason why the founding fathers created the second ammendment.  Liberals like to argue that there is no reason why a citizen should be able to have an assualt rifle or the same quality of equipment that the army has, but the truth is that that is exactly what the founding fathers intended.  During the colonial period each household had their own weapons, which was what they used to fight off the English during the American Revolution.  If they had no weapons or if there had been a huge technology gap between what they had and what the English army had then there would be no USA.  But that is exactly why the left wing leadership wants gun control (the followers want it because they all want a nanny state, and because their leaders say it is good).  The left wing leaders would rather confiscate guns from law abiding and patriotic citizens because they are afraid that they might be forcefully removed from power as the English were.  They are not bothered by the fact that criminals will still be able to get guns from the black market because they are not a threat to their power or person.  They are plenty safe enough with all their body guards, but it would hurt them if they were forcibly removed from power.  If that happened, then they would never be allowed back into government and they would have to get real jobs and actually work for their survival.  There are no words to describe the joy I would feel over watching them have to work for a living rather than living off of tax money and donations.

  Whenever I see liberals talking about taking away all guns, or claiming that the world would be a better place with no guns then I have to ask them if we are talking about ALL guns, or all the guns of law abiding citizens.  If we are talking about just the guns of citizens then that is a terrible idea.  No one would be able to fight against a police state if that occurs.  When I was young I watched some movies and documentaries about the Holocaust.  I remember once asking my teacher why no one jumped off the trains when they were being taken to the prison camps.  I do not remember what answer the teacher gave me, I just remember that it was unsatisfactory.  It may be that they had no idea what they were in for so they thought it would be easier not to fight or run, but now that we have seen what happened to them, it just goes to show what could happen to any of us.  I would rather be shot then taken to a prison camp where I have to starve to death (at best) or where I may be tortured and used in experiments.  So how do we resist a thing like that if we have no guns? 

  Now, if no one in the world had guns then the world may or may not be a better place.  I think from a moral perspective close quarters combat is better than distance combat because distance combat is impersonal, and it makes killing too easy.  If you are going to fight and kill you should see who it is that you are fighting and have to work for it a little.  If you do not have the stomach for that then perhaps your cause is not just and you have no business fighting.  I already own a few melee weapons, so if there were no guns then I would have a considerable advantage over most criminals.  I would actually prefer it that way, because with my ADD it is quite possible that I could blow off a large chunk of my body or kill myself on accident with a gun.  I would have to take a good deal more precautions than the average person when dealing with a gun, whereas the odds of accidentally harming myself or someone else with a sword are a good deal lower.  However, in the modern world we have to have guns, because if one side has guns the other side needs to have them in order to survive.  There is no way we can go back to a time before guns unless another disaster like the Biblical flood occurs.

  • 11:44 am
  • 4 Comments