“The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, ” Wikipedia reports, “which killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, and four other adults; at least 58 people were injured . . . Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–14 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.” Before the attack on the school, bomber Andrew Kehoe killed his wife with a blow to the head. After the main blast, the former school board member used a .30-caliber Winchester bolt-action rifle to ignite the dynamite in the back of his truck, killing himself and several bystanders. [h/t Daniel Greenfield]
If we had had gun control, he couldn’t have ignited that dynamite!
That was only the truck bomb. The house and school were remotely detonated. http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/history/bath/index_1.html
If only they had a law against killing people none of this stuff would happen.
No, the problem is that they’ve never made a law that says it’s illegal to break the law.
If gun control actually worked like the antis think it would, then why do we have a military that uses guns? Or a police force that uses guns? Apparently, a sign saying “no guns” is all that’s needed to stop violent crazy people from doing violent crazy things with any tool they can find.
How has that worked out in history? It hasn’t. Ever. It’s been that way since the dawn of time when all we had were rocks and sticks. Did our ancestors paint a “no rocks allowed” sign to stop violence? No. They picked up their own rock and stick and solved the problem by confronting the evil person committing evil deeds.
The best part about arguing with antis is the whole “guns are evil” mindset. If guns “make people evil”, then I have to ask again; why do we call the police when we need help? They have guns, therefore, they must be …. evil? Why do we have a military that has a history of stopping dictators and people committing atrocities all over the world? Using “evil” tools no less. Imagine that.
Maybe that’s because it’s what’s in our hearts that makes us good or evil, and not the tools we use. I know, mind-blowing. What’s sad is a 6-year-old understands this concept but anti-gun adults do not.
Anti-gun folks have no consistency in their “logic”.
I’m an ‘anti-gun’ in terms of people on this website. But I’m not making any of the arguments that you assign to me. If you think I’m suggesting that ‘no-gun’ signs will solve the issue or that ‘guns are evil’, then you are as wrong as the theoretical people you think you are up against.
Gun’s aren’t evil, they are a tool that makes killing easy. Hence their popularity for tasks that requiring killing. Since they make killing easy, I support making their acquisition difficult. Many of the sane people on this website would only have to go through a pain-in-the-ass hassle (grumbling about government, big brother etc) and then still get your guns.
Acquiring guns is difficult, at least legally. The shooter in this case tried and failed to buy a gun(s). Ultimately, he acquired his guns the same way most criminals do: he stole them.
And murdered the gun owner.
Here’s the thing antis don’t seem to grasp.
Since the beginning, man has been using tools to kill each other for whatever reason they deemed necessary. For simplicity, let’s say there are good and evil reasons.
So it’s good vs. evil.
That said, please think of a solution that doesn’t limit the good guys from protecting good people from the bad guys. That’s all I’m asking.
Gun free zones are the antithesis of allowing good people to protect their own children in schools, malls, and public places.
Food for thought.
That is clearly as hoax as it in no way fits the current narrative being presented to us by the liberal media.
Dynamite is carefully controlled, and there haven’t been many uses of it for violence in the USA despite its ease of use and potential to generate mass casualties. Thanks for helping point this out.
But gasoline isn’t: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happyland_Fire
Just to make the point blatantly obvious: there are multiple ways to cause mass casualties, and guns are only one of them. A little bit of thought will get you to the others. The real solution to the problem is to figure out what causes people to commit these acts and address as many of those causes as possible. Then, if all else fails, we equip people with the mindset and tools to fend off such attacks. The worst solution possible is we blame objects like they’re black magic and then tell people they can go back into their cocoons because we’ve cast the evil out.
I agree we need to address the mental aspect side of it. However, say it required a 2% nation-wide sales tax to start, to be reduced once the program is up and running. I have significant doubts in support from the right and passing in a GOP congress.
I think a complex problem requires a package of efforts, one of which could be making it harder to buy a weapon that stopping by at a Walmart to pick one up.
That was back before the internet and large scale publishers. Anyone can learn to make a really large bomb and rack up a huge body count. Just look at the Oklahoma City bombing. That was diesel and fertilizer. Bad people will do bad things unless good people are equipped to stop them.
Well the scumbag who blew up the school in that event used dynamite which is “controlled” now. Of course it would be next to impossible for any average Joe to acquire dynamite and repeat the same event today. Thus dynamite control must be working. And by logical extension that must mean that gun control would work.
The fact that a person with knowledge of basic chemistry can make their own dynamite isn’t relevant of course. Nor is the fact that one could make a large explosion with other readily available components.
The simple fact remains that a person who is determined to harm others will do it. All we can do is minimize the harm that such a person initiates on others.
Worse massacre of children and adults was actually done in Waco, TX. The murderers were FBI and ATF agents. They intentionally burned most of the kids to death. Machine gunned others from choppers. Takes a big man to do that.
Nobody ever killed kids with Reaper drones. Never ever ever.
John Wayne Gacy murdered at least 33 school aged children. He didn’t use a gun on any victim.
Scott: Timothy McVeigh blew up a building with an improvised vehicle bomb. It was illegal to do so. You cannot ban the components he used to build the bomb. They have legitimate uses and are too widespread to control ex ante.
James Holmes turned his apartment into an IED factory that took EOD teams over 24 hours to disarm.
I disagree…the “Our Lady of the Angels School fire” killed 92 students and 3 nuns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_the_Angels_School_fire#Investigation
“The cause of the fire was never officially determined. A boy, age 10 and a fifth grader at the time of the fire, confessed in 1962 [6] to setting the blaze and subsequently recanted his confession. [7] He was more afraid of confessing to his mother and stepfather than to the police. He also confessed to setting numerous other fires in the neighborhood, mostly in apartment buildings. This boy had been excused from his classroom to go to the boys’ toilet about 2:00 p.m. on the day of the fire. This was roughly the time that the fire began to smolder in the bin at the base of the stairwell. After the incident, a fire investigator found burned matches in the undamaged sacristy area of a chapel located in the basement of the north wing.
In his confession and lie-detector test, the boy related details of the fire’s origin that had not been made public and that he should not have known. Neither he nor anyone else was ever prosecuted. After further investigation, a court concluded that evidence to substantiate the confession was lacking. [8] He died in 2004.[citation needed] Officially, the cause of the fire remains unknown. An arson attempt on parish facilities in June, 1958, had burned itself out and nobody was injured.”
Are you from Chicago? I lived in the neighborhood at the time and know several people who died in the fire.
No, not from Chicago.
Maybe we should focused on making it more difficult for psycho scumb@gs like Holmes, Loughner & Lanza to walk around among decent people, and easier for the decent people to defend themselves.
But no. We can’t do that. That would violate the maniacs’ “right to privacy,” which is not one of the rights enumerated in the Constitution. The anti-freedom crew would rather violate good folks’ right to keep and bear arms — which is Constitutionally protected.
Okay, I get it. It’s not about protecting the good people, or even the drooling nuts running around and causing misery. It’s about power. The Washington power structure created a right that didn’t exist — which is a rather elegant demonstration of power, wouldn’t you say? And now the same power structure is trying to wipe out a right that does exist — not elegant, but a telling demonstration of force.
Okay. Now we know. All illusions are over and done with. Our government has declared war on us.
Guys, this is actually a pretty bad example to bring up. Someone would just find some explosives control act after this, and say that no school bombings have happened since.
That’s why I think the fire massacre above is a better example. Good luck banning fire.
Comments are closed.