I've remained quiet since the Sandy Hook school shooting. Mainly because I wanted to process everything before I put words to page and made some points that I had been mulling in my head. Obviously I am against many of the gun control proposals that 0bama is currently pimping around the country.
The main question I have been mulling in my head is: why is the response to this Sandy Hook school shooting a call for stricter gun control? Let's think about that for a minute. The belief underpinning this response is that if we had stricter gun control then this shooting would never have occurred.
Now many pushing for stricter gun control, including 0bama, would quickly try to correct that. They'd argue that they aren't saying that gun control would have prevented Sandy Hook, only that we need to "take common sense measures to try and prevent future tragedies in the future:. Why do they say that? Because they know, undoubtedly, that these proposed gun control laws would have done NOTHING, let me repeat, NOTHING to prevent the Sandy Hook shooting.
So why the push? It is called opportunism. The 0bama administration is on record as having said "never let a tragedy go to waste". They are jumping on this tragedy and shamelessly using the deaths of these 20 kids to push for laws that would have done nothing to save their lives. Kind of sickening when you think of it.
Now I have done a lot of research regarding Sandy Hook since the shooting. And there are many, many problematic details of the shooting. But let's just assume for a minute that it happened just as the mainstream media purports. What most people don't realize is that Sandy Hook isn't even close to the worst, nor most troubling, school massacre in our history.
Let me repeat that: Sandy Hook isn't even close to the worst, nor the most troubling, school massacre in our history.
No, that distinction belongs to the "Bath School Disaster". I have no idea why this title is used for this incident. It wasn't a disaster, it was a massacre. You can read all about it on wikipedia here: Bath school (not) disaster
Just a few details about this school massacre. It occurred in 1927 in Bath, Michigan. 38 elementary students were killed, 6 adults were killed, and there were at least 58 others injured. It was perpetrated by a single man who first killed his wife at home before killing all of the others at the Bath Consolidated School.
But the most interesting detail of the Bath School Disaster is that not a single victim was shot. Nope. Now the perpetrator did detonate the bomb that took his own life by firing a rifle, but none of the innocent victims of his crime were killed by a gunshot wound. They were all killed via explosives.
So let's assume for a minute that we could snap our fingers and remove every firearm in the world from existence. Let's even assume we could have done that retroactively so that every person that has died due to firearms didn't. We would still have 38 innocent children murdered in 1927 in Bath, MI. What this proves is that you cannot stop an evil person from perpetrating horrific acts of violence even if you get rid of all guns.
That's right. Evil men, bent on creating death and mayhem, will find a way to pull off such acts no matter what.
Now what is really amazing to me is that no one in the media has brought up the Bath School Disaster. That is incredible. It seems like the parallels would be drawn between Bath and Sandy Hook almost immediately. But the media have an agenda and that agenda is decidedly anti-gun. And for them to point out that the worst school massacre in history was perpetrated without a firearm would be counterproductive to that agenda.
I will have many things to say about the gun control proposals currently being pushed by our Liar In Chief, but for now I feel justified in pointing to the Bath School Disaster as proof that guns are but a tool, and not the only tool nor the cause, that madmen use to carry out their acts of violence. Not having that one tool won't prevent them from using others.