Contrary to media reports, the Newtown killer was not wearing body armor when he gunned down more than two dozen innocent people, including his own mother.
Adam Lanza went into the Sandy Hook Elementary School wearing a utility vest, not a bullet proof vest, state police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said Thursday.
“It was a fishing type vest, a jacket with a lot of pockets; it was not a bullet-proof vest,” Vance said.
It was the kind of vest you can go to Wal-Mart or Cabela’s to buy any day of the week, for fishing. You don’t even need a background check with the ATF to get one.
It may seem a small thing, to quibble over what the killer was wearing, but this newly reported fact tells us a few things. Armed security at the school would likely have stopped him cold, saving lives. The media sensationally reported a major point of the story that turned out not to be true at all. No one in the media is repenting for reporting something that has turned out not to be true.
Some in the media are now calling for what amounts to a police state to avoid the next mass killing. Ban private gun ownership, electronically monitor all transactions to look for patterns in the data that could possibly, somehow, alert authorities to the next mass killer. This is such a stupid idea it could only come from a media hack who hasn’t spent two seconds thinking about the inevitable consequences of unleashing total data awareness on millions of law abiding Americans. “Big data” won’t track cash transactions, of course, so the next step would be to ban cash in all purchases or require full electronic recording of personal identification every time anyone buys anything in the entire United States. There would be no escaping government espionage on private citizens at that point, other than in the black markets that would inevitably spring up.
It goes without saying that criminals would never give up their guns, and these black markets would end up empowering them in an underground economy.
“Big data” would not have flagged the Newtown killer’s fishing vest, nor would it have noticed the guns he did not even own, but used in his crime.
The blazing irony that many on the left opposed sensible monitoring of communication between terrorists outside the US but whose phone calls happen to pass through switches located in the United States, yet are now calling for Big Brother to greet you at every single business you patronize, is apparently lost.
We know what happened during Prohibition. How organized crime became rampant. Yet when the liquor was seized, how many times was there a shootout between the criminals and the authorities (there were other shootouts, but probably between rival gangs, which probably included police officers).
What happens when guns are outlawed and someone tries to seize the guns? We could have hundreds of Wacos all over the country.
Obviously, we need to ban fishing vests.
While we’re at it, I saw this morning that someone was killed in New York by being pushed in front of the subway. Subways must be banned to prevent this type of thing from happening.
In all seriousness this subway incident was another example of a violently crazy person being allowed to run loose and unsupervised and unmedicated, with resulting tragic consequences.
The Aurora movie theater killer was also first reported to be wearing “body armor,” and was in reality also wearing a utility vest. The reason these sickos wear utility vests is because they are carrying more than one firearm with which to wreak destruction on their innocent targets.
The dumbassedness of “journalists” on this subject among many others is breathtaking.
I would love to see just one major news story that was correctly reported. Body armor sounds so scary and threatening, and implies that even an armed resistance would’ve failed. That’s why they put it in the story in the first place.
“Big data” would not have flagged the Newtown killer’s fishing vest, nor would it have noticed the guns he did not even own, but used in his crime.
Of course it would, it shows a obsessional desire to bare arms.
/sorry
Oooohhh Josh. That was so BAD is was good
In the main, a good post. The irony thing works. However, having one or two armed guards is not the answer. That kid was likely smart enough and ruthless enough to take them out first, had they been there. He was grimly determined enough to shoot any who stood bravely, yet helplessly, in his way. In that kind of situation, you need people who know how to handle a gun, have them on their person and who can hit their target. A dozen or so would do in a school that size. You know, socially conscious, responsible folks. Like school administrators and teachers used to be. And, I like to think, some still are, if given the chance. The bullet proof vest is nice to wear if survival is the objective, but in that criminal situation, shooting the kid in the leg would have achieved the required purpose. He would have been immobilized and lives would have been spared. Heck, even in many combat situations you prefer to take a wounded prisoner over a dead piece of useless meat.