More Medicine! More Medicine!

Another shooting and another storm of hysterical outrage from all the usual suspects, resorting to all the usual rhetorical tricks and traps. "Yet another ...!", "How long Oh Lord....?" and "Give us more gun control! Give us more gun control!"

What I find contemptible is that the facts of the case are barely known and yet the cry goes up for more gun control. Don't we at least need a diagnosis based on facts before we know what medicine to prescribe? Or will any medicine do so long as it is in a big enough dose?

What is known as of this writing is that the assailant, a 28 year old woman, was armed with two "assault style rifles" and a handgun, or so it is reported. It is important to the copy writers at the New York Times to work in assault style rifles in some manner; but were they actually used to do the shooting?

Has anyone paused their scribbling long enough to ask how in hell one walks about with two rifles and a pistol? It seems rather cumbersome to me and leads directly to the question of: how was what handled when?

Was the woman actually carrying all three weapons? Often in these reports the word "armed" is used to describe the fact that guns were located in the trunk of a car or some such. So, was she armed in this (misleading) sense or was she actually carrying?

My suspicion is that the shooting was done with the pistol which was probably a semi-automatic. But I don't know and I can't draw any conclusions about anything until I do know.

What I do know is that the facts are irrelevant to the usual suspects. The anti-gun hysterics are shedding crocodile tears and pumping "yet another shooting" of innocent children for all it is worth in their crusade to nullify the Second Amendment.

©