We don’t need more gun control we need to emphasize SELF Control...and common sense!

Everytime one of these senseless and horrific mass shootings occurs – Columbine, Sandy Hook the Denver movie theater and now - with Islamic terrorism happening on American soil – San Bernadino, Barack Hussein Obama and his ilk on the left immediately start chattering hysterically about needing more and more and more gun control.

Well, I have news for you, Obama et al; the answer to Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Teach and other similar active shooter situations is not more gun control. Rather, as far as solutions go, the solution to deranged, unstable non-Muslims going off their nut and blasting away at a room full of unarmed innocents is…wait for it…more and more and more SELF control.

Liberals and other gun control fans love to analogize a more heavily armed society with the Wild West and start talking about shootouts and blahblahblahblahblah. Well, the facts are that the amount of gunfights – be they two people standing in the middle of a deserted dusty street challenging each other to “draw, partner!” or teams of 3 or 4 each spread out across the rocks blasting away at each other – were factually few and far between. So much so that “Wild West” museums struggle with the problem of depicting Early American West history as historically factual (i.e., no gun fights) or to fudge a little on the period-correctness and have a larger percentage of gunfights than was ever really a part of the era, just to attract attendance and live up to the visitors’ paradigm of “The Old West.”

Let put that a different way. The historical record shows that even in a society as the “Old/Wild West” was with next to zero gun laws and a prolifically-armed populace where everyone was openly packing a “shootin’ iron” on their hip and every horse’s saddle incorporated a lever action repeating carbine there weren’t enough real shootings or shoot outs

No, Barry et al; the answer is NOT yanking guns away from private, law-abiding citizenry. It’s about getting back to teaching a consistent moral code to people from birth to death and enforcing that. Remember this nation really was founded on Judeo-Christian values that teach “Thou Shall Not Murder”*

And – central to this – they punished murderers in the “Old West” – swiftly, promptly and fatally. They “hung ‘em high” and were damned quick about it. No sitting in jail for 30 years while a dozen appeals were filed, activist judges ruled capital punishment “unconstitutional” or waiting on repeals from the governor.

No, the answer is not more gun control. Look at Washington, DC. In the 1980s and ‘90s it was known as the “murder capital” of the USA yet had the strictest gun control laws in the country.** California has the strictest gun control laws in existence in America today*** And in France there is no right to bear arms and one has to submit to a psychological evaluation and repeatedly renew a license to even own a gun over there.****

So, bottom line; for non-Islamic terrorism mass shootings, an additional solution is to cease “mainstreaming” the more unstable. Remember the Sandy Hook shooter and Columbine shooters and the Denver theater shooter all had serious obvious and demonstrated mental health issues. I’m sorry but we need to sequester those folks away from society (like we used to do). Don’t just medicate ‘em and send ‘em on their way.  Nothing’s going to guarantee they’re going to stay on those meds and not hurt anybody.

The answer is not “safe zones” on college campuses, “gun free” public buildings or any of that feels good but proven ineffective as hell stupidness. The answer is let law-abiding Americans arm themselves so they at least have a fightin’ chance at surviving should someone try this violence in their presence.

As for the Islamic terrorism thing; again Obama et al, the answer is not restricting gun rights. And it sure as hell isn’t shove more undocumented, unknown “refugees” from those countries down our throats (maybe I should say at our throats) and into our cities and neighborhoods. No, we need more self control and common sense from Obama et al on immigration – particularly from Muslim countries.

And in an active terrorist shooting event, a prolifically-armed society of law-abiding citizens has a far better chance of incident survival than does a heavily-armed police force that can’t be everywhere. Take yesterday for example. The area of the San Bernadino shooting, the area in and around the Inland Center, was literally swarming with law enforcement. And they brought in some big military-style equipment.

Fat lotta good. All that didn’t do one thing for the 14 killed and 17 wounded and who knows how many traumatized by the event. The cops – I don’t care how armed they are – can’t be everywhere at once.

*Original Hebrew Torah verb used in the sixth commandment was “rastah” which only refers to criminal acts of taking another’s life. Not the all-encompassing English verb “kill” that covers taking of life under any circumstances. See Wintry Knight blog (25 Mar, 2010) Does the Bible Say Thou Shalt Not Kill or Thou Shalt Not Murder? Retrieved 3 Dec, 2015 from http://winteryknight.com/2010/03/25/does-the-bible-say-thou-shalt-not-kill-or-thou-shalt-not-murder/

**Lewis, A and McKenna B (6 Aug, 2014) BBC News, Washignton DC from murder capital to boomtown. Retrieved 3 Dec, 2015 from http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28605215

***Smith, S. (2 Dec., 2015) Bustle, California Has the Toughest Gun Control In the Country, And That Might Be Exactly the Point, Retrieved 3 Dec., 2015 from http://www.bustle.com/articles/127272-california-has-the-toughest-gun-control-in-the-country-and-that-might-be-exactly-the-point

****Taylor, A. (9 Jan, 2015) Washington Post, France has strict gun laws. Why didn’t that save Charlie Hebdo victims? Retrieved 3 Dec., 2015 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/01/09/france-has-strict-gun-laws-why-didnt-that-save-charlie-hebdo-victims/  Yep. You read the citation correctly! Even the liberal Washington Post is questioning the effectiveness of gun control laws.

So, what's the answer?

French President Francois Hollande says the Friday the 13th terror attacks in Paris were an "act of war." Well, Monsieur le Président, I say bon chance* with that. Firstly, France hasn't won a war since WWI. They didn't win in WW2 - we basically won that for them and the rest of the world. They didn't win in French Indochina (not that we fared much better there) and they didn't win in Algeria.

For one thing, the French military isn't that large - or that strong - like it was in their days of empire. They would need - badly - allied support, big time, to win anything of any size and deployment.

But, most importantly, even if they - or the civilized world starts a war against ISIS - I don't think they or the rest of the non-Muslim world has the fortitude needed to finish it.

A quick look at history is appropriate here. By 1864, America's Civil War was dragging into its 3rd year with no end in sight. America's own Civil War general William Tecumseh Sherman told Union Commander in Chief Grant that as long as the War was a distant reality to the South, the Confederacy was not motivated to end it.His philosophy became "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." 

Sherman's infamous fiery and terrifying “March to the Sea” was executed so to frighten the civilian population of Georgia into abandoning the Confederate cause. Sherman was convinced the Confederacy was being kept strong not from its military but from the moral and material of Southern Confederates.

Sherman knew he had to quite literally "fight fire with fire." And the experts in terrorism analysis say we need to do the same here in the 21st century to defeat Islamic terrorism.

For one thing, the naysayers are quick to mention that unlike the Confederacy, unlike the Hun of WW 1 or the Nazis of WW2, Islamic terrorists are not a uniformed military fighting for a centralized national government. Instead they are - like the Viet Minh and Viet Cong of Indochina/Vietnam - by their very nature obscure forces embedded into the very societies of various nations in which they strike - including France and the United States.

However, by their very nature, embedded terrorists rely on the same moral and military support of their surrounding societies and various Middle Eastern countries very much like - even more so - the uniformed armies of the Confederacy did from the civilian population of Georgia.

So, like Sherman did to Georgia, I agree with current US presidential candidate Donald Trump that we should ""bomb the (expletive deleted) out of ISIS."**

Just this morning I got mildly taken to task by a friend who chastised me for saying bombing we should literally carpet bomb the crap out of that part of the world (in the spirit of Sherman's philosophy of bringing the pain to them). Her opinion is that to do that would hurt a lot of the good Muslims who don't agree with the radicals and terrorists.

Like I say, just like in Vietnam we lack the fortitude to do what is necessary to finish it against an enemy like the VC of the 1960s or the Islamic terrorists of today.
But to those who worry about the fate of the "good" but silent people in that part of the world, I say firstly it's long past time for those good but silent people to rise up and turn out the radicals. Those good but silent people and governments need to leave the terrorists and those of like mind with them absolutely no safe havens to hide or train in - not in homes, not in mosques, not in sympathetic countries. Those good but silent people and governments need to go beyond silence or platitudinous statements and make it specifically well-known and very damned well-demonstrated that to support terrorists in any way means pain - death and destruction the likes of which the terrorists bring to US!

We keep on doing it until terrorists have no friendly places to hide, train or do business in. We keep on doing it until every one terrorists turn to and everywhere they run to slams the door in their face and shuts them out in the cold to be captured or killed. And we keep on doing it until this crap completely stops!

If our protection from being gunned down in a concert hall, sidewalk cafe or blown up at a soccer stadium or by a hijacked airliner slamming into our places of business and our national and cultural survival means the pain or death of "good" but silent people and governments then, I'm sorry, but so bloody be it! Some day - probably sooner than later - it's gonna come down to either us or them. And I know which way I'm gonna decide on that one.

Lastly, to those who say we can't "fight fire with fire," I say, then what's your solution? Whatever it is, we better come up with an effective solution and damned quick.



*"good luck"
**Gore, L. (13 Nov., 2015) Donald Trump: "I would bomb the s--- out of ISIS," AL.COM. Retrived 14 Nov., 2015 from http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/donald_trump_i_would_bomb_the.html