Connecticut School Shooting

Here is a wonderful article from Karl Denninger of The Market Ticker, which cuts through the hype and discusses the horrific event last Friday based solely upon the facts.  Keep in mind that this article was written the day after the tragedy.  That being said, he examines the event based not on fear or hysteria, but the known facts.  Here it is.

CT School Shootings; Facts Before Hype

by Karl Denninger

You have to live in a hole not to know that a deranged young man shot up a school yesterday morning.

In the aftermath there are the predictable calls for bans on all guns, bans on most guns, and bans on, well, anyone other than you and your hired goons (aka Mayor Bloomberg) having a gun.

Hysteria does not produce good results.  Indeed, evil men often wait for conveniently-timed hysteria to do unspeakably ugly and evil things under cover of public demand that they conveniently exploit.  There are hundreds if not thousands of banksters freely roaming the land today who are free under precisely this rubric; men and women (but mostly men) who would under any rational legal system be rotting in prison right now but for Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke locking Congress in a room in the dark evenings of 2008 and threatening that the end of the world would ensue if he was not given plenary power to do whatever he thought necessary.  He even came with a convenient three-page document that would grant him that power.  Ultimately Congress only gave him part of what he asked for, but as is almost always the case when someone claims he is going to do something under mass-hysteria conditions he is lying, and intends to do something else.

Such was the case with Hank Paulson, who we now know had “changed his intent” to buy toxic assets (his original claim) before Congress voted on the proposal and yet didn’t tell Congress of his changed intentions, misleading the body intentionally by omission.

You’re still paying for the result today in the form of ridiculous unemployment, food stamp recipients going off the scale, gasoline and other necessities nearly doubling in price and the inexorable health care cost ramp continuing.  All of this is happening because instead of addressing the causes of the crisis and jailing the malefactors responsible the executive used the hysteria generated by Lehman’s failure to shove a law down Congressional throats.

Now let’s look at what we know about the Connecticut shootings — and unlike many commentators I will clearly delineate that which we now can state confidently are facts, that which is a reasonable conclusion from those facts, and that which is speculative in character at this time as sufficient information is not available to refute or support such a position.

We’ll start with the guns.  They are reported to have been legally owned by the shooter’s mother and included a Glock pistol, a Sig pistol and a .223 caliber rifle.  The rifle has been reported to be a sporting variety commonly used for target practice or hunting varmints; if the make and model reported are correct it is indeed a hunting variant (it has a fixed stock as hunting rifles typically do, no flash-hider on the front or other “scary looking” but immaterial cosmetics, etc.)  Sig makes extremely high-quality (and commensurately expensive) pistols; Glock of course makes highly-reliable and well-respected weapons as well.  A little-known fact about Glocks is that for many people they “point” funny due to a different grip angle than most other pistols; some people find them very difficult to shoot accurately for this reason.  That may be why the mother owned both (she may have bought one and not liked it, then bought the other.)  The rifle was found inside the car the shooter drove and since he never came out of the school building once going in it must be presumed that he did not use that gun in the school assault.  There is nothing particularly-remarkable about the weapons used in this assault; they are common guns used lawfully by millions of Americans for hunting, target practice and defensive purposes. (Update 12/15 late – it is now reported that the rifle was in fact on the shooter and was in fact used in the shooting, not left in the car.)

Of note is that the shooter could not have legally acquired the pistols, as he is not 21.  Federal law requires one to be 21 years of age before purchasing a pistol at retail.  In this particular case, however, it doesn’t matter whether he was 21 or not as he didn’t buy any of the weapons involved; they were lawfully purchased by his mother who the assailant murdered prior to assaulting the school.  Click here for the rest of the article.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s