Once again, retired Virginia State Police Superintendent Massengill is out shilling for closure of the so-called “gun show loophole.”
Stepping into a volatile political issue that he said will take on a new urgency and tenor in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre, Massengill described himself as a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights but
Ah, yes, there’s always a but. Just like when someone starts a sentence with ‘I’m not racist but,’ you know they’re about to contradict themselves.
“We can’t allow the proliferation of guns to continue,” he said, speaking before The Virginia Center for Public Safety, a nonprofit group that is part of a coalition of gun-control advocates.
You support the Second Amendment by supporting a gun prohibition group that wants to eradicate said Amendment? That makes sense. And, umm, you’re saying we can’t allow people to continue buying guns? But isn’t that kinda the opposite of supporting the people’s right to own them? Oooookay. Moving on.
Private sales or trades at gun shows involving unlicensed dealers are exempt from background checks, which can turn up information on criminal histories and hospitalizations for mental illness.
Supporters of the exemption argue that data is lacking to show a direct link between gun violence or crime and private sales. Such sales often involve a single weapon and another collector.
No. The data isn’t lacking. The data is rather clear, and it shows pretty much the exact opposite. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, gun shows account for less than 2% of guns used by criminals. But, hey, why let little things like facts get in the way when you can dance in the congealed blood of Virginia Tech students?
But he also recounted Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho’s ability to purchase guns despite findings that he was mentally ill, a matter since corrected through an executive order issued by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine.
But Massengill said even if a background check had turned up Cho’s name, Cho could have purchased weapons at a gun show.
So let me get this straight. Because Cho didn’t buy his guns at a gun show and would have passed the identical background check at a gun show anyway, we need restrict people’s rights based what didn’t happen and what could have happened? If you want to play a game of what-ifs, Cho could have walked into school with a chainsaw and started decapitating people. He could have walked in carrying a duffel bag filled with molotov cocktails and burned just as many people alive. He could have simply made a bomb from fertilizer and diesel fuel and killed everyone in the building. So why aren’t you rushing out to close the gas station and lawn care “loopholes” too?
Speaking of what-ifs, how about, oh, I dunno, we put an end to this “gun-free,” victim-disarmament zone nonsense so that students and faculty could defend themselves?
But he minimized the notion that Cho may have been stopped sooner had students or selected teachers been allowed to carry guns.
Allowing such a scenario may have deterred Cho, Massengill said, but law-enforcement officers realize that more guns on campus combined with what he called “the exuberance of youth” will eventually lead to a calamity.
“More guns on campus is not going to lead to a safer environment.” he said.
Riiight. Because we all saw how well it worked out when the only gun on campus was in the hands of a madman. And we all saw how well it worked out when the administration fought to keep it that way and proudly proclaimed their institution as a target-rich environment in the press so that every madman would know.
Spoken like a true Only One..