Lame weirdo George Sodini walked into a dance-aerobics fitness class in Bridgeville Tuesday, flipped off the lights and started shooting.
Using three guns (he had brought four) Sodini fired at least 36 bullets, according to the Associated Press, killing three women and wounding nine others before turning a gun on himself.
I haven't seen what types of guns Sodini used. I don't know where he bought them, or when, or how. I do know that they fit into a duffel bag, which he had placed on the floor of the exercise room before he started his rampage.
I also know I can expect this hare-brained response from the pro-gun lobby:
"Well, if every woman in that room was packin' heat, they could have defended themselves and saved lives!"
By what - firing randomly into the darkness, probably hitting other class members scurrying around in a panic? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
I also like the extension of this idea, that if EVERYONE IN THE WORLD were to carry a concealed handgun, tragedies like this wouldn't occur.
Wrong again, neckbeard. This pitiful loser actually posted his DEATH DATE as August 4 on a Web page where he chronicled a) his inability to have a normal relationship with a woman and b) his intent to slaughter women in that particular class.
Clearly, a guy who plans to die as part of his assault probably isn't gonna be deterred by anyone else's ability to kill him, so long as he can squeeze off a few rounds first. Which, let's face it, he almost certainly would unless he was in Florida at the time, where citizens have been actively encouraged by the legislature to shoot first and ask questions later (another reason I won't be visiting Florida any time soon).
"OOOOO!" I can just hear some troglodyte screaming in the back now. "OOO! Well, it wasn't the gun what killed them people, it was him. I mean, what if he only had a knife? Huh? What then? He still coulda killed those girls! With a common kitchen knife like your ma uses to make apple pie with! How about that, smart guy? Huh? Or do you hate apple pie, too, you pinko?!"
Here's how about that, you mutant slug: If he had a knife, he likely wouldn't have been able to inflict the same level of damage, because he either wouldn't have been able to see in the dark well enough to correctly cut arteries, or he would have had to leave the light on, in which case the victims would have been able to see/run from their assailant, during which time they probably would have been screaming and someone might have been able to intervene sooner, reducing the number of victims killed or even seriously injur--
You know what? That argument is just too stupid to even argue. I'm tired of it and it makes no sense, so stop using it.
I'm also tired of this same kind of thing happening again and again and again. But, to be honest, I have no answer on how to stop it, aside from outlawing the purchasing of guns by the common citizen. And we can't do that, of course, because if our government ever turns tyrannical, we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves.
After all, that is what it all comes down to, isn't it? Freedom from tyranny? Well, put on a helmet to contain the splatter, because I am about to blow your mind: We already lost that fight. A looong time ago.
Oh, don't get me wrong - when everybody had the same muskets, we probably still stood a chance. But the second our country's military was allowed to have and control weapons beyond the scope of the common man, it was over.
I'd say by the end of World War One, we were probably already punching out of our weight class. In 2009? Hell, even if every town in every state of the union had a well-provisioned militia, any assault they might rally against the modern military would be laughable. We might win Alaska, but who the hell wants it? Hawaii...well, that could go either way.
As for the Continental U.S., forget it. Gum-ment wins, hands down. Which brings us to the question: What's the point of even having the Second Amendment if any intended use of it ends in defeat? (And it almost certainly would.)
I mean, are we just going to sit around waiting for what some view as an inevitable civil war between the federal government and the country's citizens, or should we give up a right that's meaningless even at the Constitutional level for the sake of personal safety?
Personally, I don't know how I'd go on that one. I mean, it's fun to go out in the woods and, you know, just shoot some stuff.
But is it really worth it? Is it really, really worth it?