Author: R J Adams

There seems to be a move towards praising the Northern Illinois University for its prompt action in informing students of the killer loose on the campus during its very own Valentine’s Day Massacre.

Tonight, NBC and a number of other news media organizations, said that following the Virginia Tech shootings last year, guidelines introduced in educational establishments had been adhered to, and NIU had used text messaging and its intranet to alert students to the potential danger.

Congratulations to Northern Illinois University for its quick response to this emergency.

It needn’t have bothered.

The guidelines adopted after Virginia Tech had no effect on the loss of life at NIU yesterday. The gunman was already in the building and killing people before anyone was aware what was happening.

The media skirt around the issue, looking for any loophole they can use to justify some cause other than the prevalence of firearms in this country, as the reason for incidents similar to yesterday’s massacre.

Whatever the sickness pervading this nation that creates assassins like Stephen Kazmierczak, the root cause of yesterday’s killings lies with the number of firearms on the loose in this country and the ease with which people like Kazmierczak can obtain them.

THERE CAN BE NO ARGUMENT AGAINST THAT FACT.

The general objection to gun control is that it is impossible to take guns off the streets. Opponents argue that criminals will always be able to obtain them illegally.

Today, I have read comments from those who declare that if only students were allowed to carry weapons on their persons, Kazmierczak would have been gunned down before he could perpetrate his crimes.

THIS IS TOTAL AND UTTER MADNESS!

Proponents of this crazy idea would turn America’s campuses into battlefields. The young are emotionally impetuous enough, without putting lethal firearms in their pockets.

Today, in Britain, an experiment is taking place in schools in the southern town of Southampton. Metal-detecting wands are being used to check-out pupils suspected of carrying knives into schools. Head teachers confirm there is not a problem with knives in their schools, but the local authority has introduced the measure as an added security, and as an additional tool for teachers, should it be necessary.

Had Stephen Kazmierczak only had the option of a knife, it is likely he could have been overpowered before inflicting any fatal injury. In fact, he probably would never have attempted his attack if his only weapon were a knife. Somehow, a knife does not carry the power and romanticism of a firearm.

And thereby hangs the crux of the matter. In America, guns are romantic. They hold an appeal that lights the eye of every ‘macho’ American male. It’s a false machismo; an indoctrinated delight; a sop to male insecurity.

As an outside observer, it’s not difficult to understand the allure of gun power in America. Getting Americans to understand it is a different matter altogether. Tell an American male the selection of firearms in his gun cabinet is nothing more than a sop to his masculine insecurity is likely to find one at the receiving end of his favorite .270 Winchester.

Yet, doesn’t that just prove my point?

Gun control begins with a period of amnesty followed by enforcement, with fines and jail sentences for offenders. The opponents are right, guns would not disappear off the streets overnight and criminals would be the last people to lose access to them. It would take ten years to lower the level of gun ownership in this country to an acceptable and relatively legal level. It is not impossible. Other countries have achieved it. Over that ten year period, incidents like the massacre at NIU would decline.

The last school shooting in Britain was in March 1996, twelve years ago. Following that massacre of sixteen children and one adult, the government introduced legislation bitterly opposed by gun clubs and rifle associations throughout the land.

That the legislation was effective, is proven by the total lack of similar incidents since that time, and the fact that Southampton schools are more concerned about possible, though unlikely, knife attacks.

Does America have the courage to enact similar legislation, or is the macho insecurity of the American male more important than the lives of young US students?

Filed under: Don’t tell me it can’t be done

It makes for a depressing evening to hear that yet again, in fact, for the fourth time this week, a shooting has taken place at a US educational establishment. In this instance, five seven have died and a number injured when a youth armed with a shotgun and pistol entered a lecture hall of the Northern Illinois University outside Chicago and opened fire on the occupants.

How much longer will Americans allow this to go on?

About three years ago Sparrow Chat began a series of posts entitled, “Guns Save Lives – No ?” It began at ‘No 1’, but rapidly increased until the number became too ludicrous, and the incidents too numerous, to continue cataloging.

The title for these posts was chosen because it was the motto of, perhaps, the most irresponsible, cold-blooded, institution in the United States today – the National Rifle Association – whose members oppose any form of gun control, backed by a powerful political lobby in Washington.

The continuing deaths and injuries of America’s young people are directly attributable to this body, and its warped and dangerous mindset.

Following on from such tragic news, was a BBC America interview with George W Bush. It was my intention to comment on the event at some length, but listening to the somnambulant mind of America’s president regurgitating the ‘same old, same old’ on Iraq, Africa, China’s human rights, and a historical legacy that will certainly label Bush, at least in his own mind, as the savior of mankind, all became too much for comment.

His reference to ‘the Dalai Llama’s crowd’, while discussing opposition to human rights violations by China, was only equaled by the comment that Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and renditions should send a signal to the world that “America is going to respect law, but is going to take actions necessary to defend itself.”

That George Bush is totally out of his depth became crystal clear when he stated he was:

“….the first president to propose a two-state solution on Israel and Palestine…”

Note: the Clinton Peace Plan of 2000 stated:

“The solution will have to be consistent with the two-state approach – the state of Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.” [my bold]^[1]

Obviously, the efforts of his predecessors have slipped George Bush’s mind.

Listening to George W Bush waffle over Matt Frei’s questions, brought two separate images to the fore. First, I was reminded of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, a man who believes he can talk down criticism of his policies, even though they are totally at odds with the majority of his countrymen. Second, Bush reminded me of a sloppy painter and decorator whitewashing a wall, but oblivious to the large areas that his less than expert handiwork left uncovered.

To critique George Bush is akin to dissecting the political opinions of a not-too-bright eighth-grader with little hope of achieving the standards necessary for further education.

While I may not enjoy the highest intellectual ability for political affairs, assessing the utterances of a dim-wit schoolboy is certainly beneath me.

If that is considered exaggeration, judge for yourself:^[2]

^{[1] The Clinton Peace Plan, 23 December 2000.}

^{[2] BBC – Bush Interview}

Filed under: Going downhill

In a recent interview with the BBC’s Matt Frei,^[1] George W Bush was asked ‘….. whether America still occupies the moral high ground after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.’

Bush’s response, according to the BBC, was ‘a crisply and blunt answer’:

“Absolutely,” he replied. “We believe in human rights and human dignity. We believe in the human condition. We believe in freedom.”

Obviously, he has no notion that he is the one western political leader in two centuries who has come closer than any other to giving ‘democracy’ a bad name.

^{[1] BBC – “Bush defends US record on Darfur”}

^{See the full interview tonight (Thursday) on BBC America – 1900 ET}

Filed under: Clueless