lori-haas-right-courtesy-usatoday-com

When a mainstream media news org wants to hide its editorial bias while promoting same, ye olde “letters to the editor” is a blessing. The Washington Post, for example, can publish a rant laden with anti-gun animus claiming “it wazzunt me!” Even though, of course, it usually is. But those stories are “news,” dontcha know. A letter to the editor is the voice of the people! Unedited! Unfiltered! Yes well . . .

That assertion falls apart when the letter in question comes from a rep from a lobby group, rather than John or Jane Q. Public. In fact, you have to wonder if the WaPo and its ilk don’t solicit letters from the usual suspects to further the editors’ agenda. They certainly further the writers’ agenda, letting them piggy-back on the news org’s SEO.

To wit: a “letter to the editor” from Lori Haas, the Virginia state director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. Ms. Haas’ 501(c)(3) works with “impacted community members to create a voting bloc trained to advocate for policies that reduce gun violence.”

No surprise, then, that Ms. Haas would pen an anti-pistol polemic for the resolutely anti-gun rights elitists at the Washington Post. Guns are unwelcome on college campuses consists of three paragraphs. Just for fun, let’s fisk them one at a time.

As a mother whose daughter was shot when a gunman killed 32 innocent students and wounded 17 others at Virginia Tech, I was horrified by the Sept. 29 Metro article “Va. Tech student is fasting for gun rights.”

See what’s happening here? The Post is not satisfied with publishing a relatively unbiased news report on the Virginia Tech student fasting for firearms freedom. The paper feels the need to stick the knife in. But they can’t do it themselves; a civil rights protest is a leftie’s sacred cow, after all. So the WaPo turns to Ms. Haas to do the dirty for them.

Ms. Haas is the perfect vehicle. She can — and does — wave the bloody shirt for gun control. Which is the antis’ go-to “heart over head” strategy when it comes to promoting public policy that puts the pubic at risk. She’s horrified I tell you! Horrified! Or as Kurz said, the horror, the horror.

A lone protester wants to carry a gun on the Virginia Tech campus. The overwhelming majority of students and staff do not want guns at Virginia Tech or on the majority of college campuses. More than 95 percent of college presidents oppose guns on campus.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right. As such it does not depend on popular support — especially amongst ivory tower intellectuals who have no more experience of urban hellholes than the inhabitants of those hell holes have of Kierkegaard.

Ms. Haas would have readers believe that it’s one gun-loving nutcase against the entire higher education system. Which is almost but not entirely true (e.g., Students for Campus Carry). And again, see above.

The fact is guns are twice as likely to be used in suicides as in homicides, with 58 people dying every day by suicide by a firearm. In a space meant for growing and learning, but also with known high risk factors for gun violence, such as alcohol and drug use, guns do not belong.

Ironically enough, college students’ appetite for illegal drugs helps fuel the [non-suicide] “gun violence” (on campus and off). That being as it is, it’s hard to believe a woman whose child experienced the horror of an unopposed gunman on campus would argue against “allowing” students, teachers, administrators and/or law-abiding visitors to defend themselves by force of arms.

Hard but not impossible. It’s easier, psychologically, to focus on gun control than spree killer control. Just as it’s easier for The Washington Post to publish a letter to the editor than to write up yet another anti-gun editorial.

32 Responses to Three WaPo Paragraphs on Gun Control Prove Problematic

  1. Campus carry was already banned when the Virginia Tech massacre went down, right? In other words, infringing on students’ Constitutional rights didn’t prevent her daughter’s death.

    And yet, here we are. Go figure.

    • And they’re doubling down on the madness. It’s almost like they WANT college students to die. But hey, at least they’ll die pure and unsullied, right?

    • Details are unimportant when you have feels…see, the important thing is we make decisions based purely on emotional females. That’s how we fix everything.

      Unless we are talking about elections, then we need to vote for the most coldhearted emotionless female on the planet.

      • I’m afraid my long-term attorney is retiring, and won’t be running for public office.

        (Oh, and you forgot “ruthless”.)

  2. Campus carry has now been in effect at all state colleges and universities in Texas for the past month. Contrary to the hysteria and hype from the leftists at UT and other campuses, there have been no difficulties with the new law. The same is true for open carry which the critics predicted would lead to shoot outs in the streets. The indisputable fact is that legal carry has not led to an increase in murders, shootings and violence. Those remain for the most part the acts of convicted criminals, inner city minorities and gang bangers much to the chagrin of anti-gunners..

  3. “I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right.”

    Just how is that right protected, so that you can freely exercise? No one to enforce prohibition against legal infringement? Is that a “right unexercised (unenforced) is a “right” lost? If society and the law and the courts determine you do not have a RTKBA, and possession of a personally-owned gun is illegal, what is the value of your “right? If society and the law and the courts determine you do not have a RTKBA and possession of a personally-owned gun is illegal, what is the purpose of that “right”. Talking academically is one thing, talking real world is quite another. Repeating the same mantra over and again does not defeat the anti-gun movement. Repeating the same mantra over and again does not work to enforce the RTKBA. Repeating the same mantra over and again is not a an “affirmative defense” in court. Repeating the same mantra over and again does not overturn a single restriction to the RTKBA. Repeating the same mantra over and again, while expecting a different outcome IS a most effective means of providing that anti-gun crowd fuel for the argument that gun owners are complete Luddites.

  4. And just another fact that shouldn’t be lost to the mists of time…

    “Virginia Tech was, by the decree of its administrators, a “gun-free zone.” Those with concealed-weapons permits were not allowed to take their guns on campus and were disciplined when they did. A bill was introduced in the state House of Delegates to allow permit-holders to carry guns on campus. When it was sidetracked, a Virginia Tech administrator hailed the action and said that students, professors and visitors would now “feel safe” on campus.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/220763/feeling-safe-isnt-safe-michael-barone

    “Feeling” safe didn’t last long.

  5. Her kid died in a campus shooting, so she wants your kid to die in a campus shooting too. That’s the long and short of it.

      • My Hispanic 5’2 mother scares me more than any woman on the planet.

        She closed fist swung on me more than once growing up, has a raging temper, holds grudges for years, packs a gun, and loves Hillary.

        I love her, but she might be the antichrist. My mom, not Hillary, well, at least the love part.

    • Actually Ralph, I have heard multiple gun-grabbers rationalize “gun-free zones” this way:
      (1) Evil attackers are going to attack with any item they choose (yes, even firearms) wherever they choose no matter what we do. Thus “gun-free” zones are not designed to stop those types of attacks.
      (2) Everyone else is “nominally good” and will follow the rules to disarm before going into “gun-free” zones. Thus, “gun-free” zones are designed to stop those “nominally good” people from trying to kill a rude patron or trying to kill everyone in the building when they have meltdowns.

      Of course gun-grabbers never bother to explain how a “nominally good” person can become so unhinged that they want to kill people … or how such people would be compelled to honor disarmament laws when they are willing to violate murder laws.

      • “Of course gun-grabbers never bother to explain how a “nominally good” person can become so unhinged that they want to kill people…”

        Simple. Everyone is capable of being pushed beyond self-control, and without warning. A person who is not displaying any signs of “going off” isn’t trustworthy just based on outward appearance. So, a person “about to snap” is more likely to follow the rules of gun-free zones, thus removing the ability to use a gun in a crowd. The “rule” is not likely to be a “trigger” event, but interaction with strangers is too fraught with danger.

        Essentially, it is impossible to prevent or fight evil, so that is just something we must endure until the government can remove all guns from everywhere. But, removing guns from non-criminals in order to prevent them from using their guns in criminal acts is something to work towards. If gun-free zones save even one person…..

        Besides, if one avoids places where bad people hang-out/live, the likelihood of being a crime victim is near-zero. Having just any Joe walking around with a gun is highly dangerous because they seem normal, and will give no warning they are about to “snap” and kill a bunch of innocent people.

  6. To borrow from Pete Seeger: when will they ever learn? Evidence suggests that they don’t and won’t. They’ll just keep beating that drum even though both heads are torn. And we responsible PotG suffer.

    • While we’re digressing, I hate the word “slather.” Gives me heebiest of jeebies just typing it.

      • I hate the word behavioral.

        It’s a useless word which can and should be replaced with just behavior.

        You don’t speak about people’s behavioral or ask your kids to behavioral. So, why do people use it at all. It’s a dumb word.

        I’m talking to you, Criminal Minds.

        • I despise the word hate, it’s bandied about so much in phrases like “It was a hate crime”, like that makes kicking someones ass worse because they were hated too. People hate Democrats and then they hate Grape Nuts. It kind of waters down the meaning. The word “Hate” should we reserved for really important things or like so many words it really loses its meaning.

        • If you oppose me, in any fashion, it is a demonstration of hate. I am a good person, I do not wish to harm anyone, or make them feel bad. People who do not approach the world as I do are simply hateful (hate-filled).

  7. As for the drugs and alcohol on college campuses: if you teach your kids to enjoy/value guns/shooting, they’ll never do drugs or drink. It won’t be worth it to them, and they won’t be able to afford it.

    • Good point!

      ” Sorry, dude. I can’t go drinking with you tonight. I’ve got to buy more ammo for the three gun competition on Saturday.”

      Works for me. /;-)

    • On the other hand, and also in opposition to the left’s attempts at gun control, they may not go to otherwise-beneficial therapists, for fear of Clnton et al riding in on their white horses and making it impossible to exercise RTKBA if you’ve EVER been on antidepressants, etc.

      And, also, it seems like a majority of the <30 crowd primarily defines themselves by their preferred illegal drug, so who knows how they might prioritize their recreation in the end.

  8. “… known high risk factors … alcohol and drug use [on college campuses] …”

    I reject Ms. Haas premise that drug and alcohol abuse is rampant on college campuses, especially in non-dorm buildings. When I went to college, I never heard nor saw anyone who was chemically impaired on campus during classes. The only impaired students I saw were at parties (whether in a dorm room or off-campus) or nightclubs.

    Regardless of how many people are impaired on a college campus, that is not a valid reason to tell people who are NOT impaired that they cannot have effective tools to defend themselves from violent attacks. After all, those very same students who are at such “high risk” of consuming alcohol and drugs could get into a car and drive: where are the calls to ban all driving on college campuses?

    • When I started going to Virginia Tech in the mid/late 1990s on-campus residents who owned guns had to store them at the campus police station and were prohibited from carrying them on campus.

      At the same time, and still, drugs were illegal and prohibited on campus. In what verse does the presence of an illegal/banned item justify the banning of a legal item (legally, morally, or rationally)?

  9. Have any of these guys actually snapped? Or was it a long term escalation that ended in a planned escalated attack. I think the only place I could put “Snapped” in some of the road rage incidents or the drunken/ drugged fights that go sideways.
    It s probably a good thing the anti gunners aren’t good at convincing arguments or it would be harder to show their lies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *