OK, I’m happy to say I told you so dear reader. Within hours of the Dayton mass shooting rampage that has so many calling for gun control, we learned this week that the killer had cocaine in his body, he even had a bag of it on him at the time of his death after he was shot over 24 times by police, and he was on anti-anxiety medication combined with alcohol. Which is exactly what I had said happened knowing very little about the evidence at the time but understanding the condition of the murders. Yet we are supposed to believe that gun control would have averted the killings. And we are supposed to put our complete trust into a police force that put so many bullets into the dead body of the attacker that they actually shot some of the victims with their own bullets. The whole ordeal was actually and remains a mess. It was liberal philosophies that made the shooter who he was and it was state controlled law enforcement that obviously over reacted and put more people in danger due to their “training.”
The killer Betts had 52 gunshot wounds in his upper and lower torso. Many of them were exit wounds but think about it. More than twenty shots fired in any crowded area would be a potential for more people around the target to be injured, and at least 2 bullets struck other people. It is humorous that when explaining this to the public Police Chief Richard Beihl had to describe those wounds as “superficial wounds.” It kind of reminds me of the Monty Python movie The Holy Grail. “Its only a flesh wound.” Of course that police training entailed shooting at the subject so that so long as he was near his rifle that they had to keep pummeling him with rounds of fire and that each of those bullets would bounce off the pavement and be a potential projectile flying into innocent people running away from the crime. They had to make sure that Betts was dead. Ah, but they were under pressure, the police. After all, wouldn’t everyone panic under such a crises and hindsight is 20/20. Well, no, not everyone panics under those conditions.
Sure, there were lots of cops that were around late that night in Dayton patrolling the entertainment district and they engaged the shooter in 30 seconds. But with so many cops also comes the understanding that they all knew this guy was a mass killer who had just attacked people on their watch, and they wanted to make sure some of their bullets got into the body of him so they could claim credit for bringing an end to the carnage, by creating more carnage. 52 bullet holes, that is just out of control, and more about getting their name in the record books than actually stopping the crime. With so many police officers firing into the cocaine liberal Betts, nobody could have taken the next logical step and moved in to remove the weapon from the attacker while he was down, minimizing the risk to the area. I have argued and will continue to, that most CCW holders would have done a much better job and not let their adrenaline get the better of them, as the police obviously suffered from. A typical NRA member with a CCW would have been much calmer and created less carnage in stopping the bad guy.
But that’s not the story of the day, its all about how to detect mental health, and the gun control advocates desire to do background checks and have red flag laws. Would a red flag law prevented this liberal Elizabeth Warren supporter from smoking crack and mixing anti-depressant medicine with alcohol and who knows whatever else, then making a terrorist out of himself? I would argue that just calling oneself a Democrat is a kind of declaration of insanity. Should all Democrats be flagged as potential terrorists? I think historically speaking, we could make that case. Is that where all this is going? Because any time a mind is altered with intoxicants, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, anti-depressants even, they are all potential minds for becoming killers. Most of them won’t of course. But where do you draw the line?
Just like the cops that shot their guns over 24 times into a body within the confines of a crowded street, politicians show they have even less good judgment on the matter. Most of them want illegal drugs legalized so they can get the tax money for their giveaway projects, and they don’t want to consider what those intoxicants do to our society. Maybe everyone who drinks a beer or smokes marijuana should be “red flagged.” I could live without drinking or doing any drugs. I would much rather have a society of gun owners carrying them around in public than a bunch of drunken heathens intoxicated in their spare time and thinking about dumb things. The lessen here is that no politician, especially on the Republican side where they should be leading the way, is addressing the core problem—drugs cause mental depletion, so no mental health scan under normal conditions will root out a potential killer. And we certainly have seen from the FBI to the local law enforcement that they are only human, and they panic too under duress and they may shoot you just for being nearby. So is the proposal of more government patrolling the streets viable, no. Is more government doing background checks and administering red flag laws viable, no. Would an assault weapons ban work, so that government could be the only ones with high powered weapons there to serve politicians who have a lot to hide in the world. Absolutely not!
So what are we to do? Well, first of all, lets admit to ourselves that drugs are a problem and our government should not be endorsing the practice of intoxication—of any kind. People will still want to drink their beer and whatever, but we must stop promoting that activity as normal. And we certainly must understand that endorsing cocaine, depression medicine and marijuana will lead to a less safe society. We cannot give up the Bill of Rights so that people can just sit around and get wasted. I understand that the political class likes intoxicated people who can’t think, because it makes it easier to garner their vote. But the consequences are obvious, and this Betts killer was an obvious example of when such a situation goes wrong. I think a legitimate look into every mass killer would tell a similar story as Betts. He was obviously a clear-cut case, he was a liberal likely caught up in the modern antics of political theater, and being a drug user, had lost his ability to rationalize outcomes. So, he became a mass killer with the obvious hope that it would inspire gun control, which is why he used the high capacity magazine. He was after all supportive of gun control, and his natural aim of throwing his life away, and those of many others, was to force the issue. But all those thoughts are derived from insanity provoked by drug abuse. Given our current culture which accepts that condition, there is always the potential for countless killers to emerge. And until we deal with the drug use, no law created by anybody will stop them. Obviously, we can’t count on law enforcement to save us. Apparently to them, collateral damage is a perfectly acceptable criteria so long as they stop the mass shooters when they do appear.
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.