On the same day a madman killed three human beings in Tucson, Arizona,
doctors, many near you, killed 270 human beings, by mistake.
Another 270 people died, many near you, because hospitals and their
staff aren't kept clean enough. The Associated Press repeatedly confirms
100,000 dead every year, from each cause.
So 540 people died that day, needlessly, some horribly, some by the
same doctors, some right near you.
On the same day three people were murdered, 540 other people were killed
nationwide. The Tucson three are in the headlines, non-stop, thousands
of miles away. The innocent 540 who woke up dead that day got deafening
radio silence -- no mentions, at all, anywhere.
So what? The media's use of this madman and others like him works to
set public policy they want. It's not a conspiracy, they just all do
it. It's why they're known as the pack media.
This killer they like so much used a gun -- not an infected scalpel
-- so the saturation coverage draws the anti-rights bigots out to holler,
and gain momentum, while our cherished medical community gets away with
murder. Policy instigated by homicidal maniacs, now there's a plan.
The next time you hear about a murder or ten, 2,000 miles away from
your home, you remember that on that same day, 540 people died, some
near you, because doctors made mistakes and hospitals give people lethal
infections.
And recognize that the murder stories these vicious editors and reporters
bring you are straight propaganda. They want you to hate guns (like
they do), depend (like they do) on the authorities (who rarely draw
their guns, and usually just draw chalk lines). They want to vilify
and attack our nation's right to be armed and defend ourselves, like
those victims sorely needed.
If their idea, as they would have you believe, is to keep us safer,
then the repeat offender doctors would be on page one. When they keep
the Tucson murderer on page one for a week, they only make us feel helpless.
What's wrong with these people?
Three dead five days ago, or 540 dead today, again. Where do you think
the focus should be -- right away -- if the goal was public safety and
not the biased agenda of control, and government supremacy, from our
hopelessly monolithic free press.
SIDEBAR
The three horrible murders at U of A were committed in a gun-free zone.
Isn't it time we recognized that:
1 - Gun-free zones are dangerous;
2 - Gun-free zones don't protect you;
3 - Gun-free zones don't effect murderers.
Shouldn't there be some sort of liability for a place that recklessly
leaves you defenseless, especially if the authorities know such an occurrence
is possible or even likely? (See the Gun-Free-Zone
Liability Act)
We so routinely accept the denial of our right to arms that we overlook
how this outcome might have been different had we not so cavalierly
abandoned everyone's right to self defense.
I heard U of A president Peter Likins say he was happy the police responded
so quickly. Seems to me they were late.
What's the point of all the news coverage of heavily armed shock troops
running about town, now that the horse is gone and there's no barn door.
The only people on time were the ones already there, defenseless in
the school's fraudulently "safe" gun-free zone. The first
person to arrive at a crime scene is always the victim, never forget
that.
When the stunning publicity of this maniac spawns another in a gun-free
zone somewhere else, you ask yourself this -- would you mind if someone
besides the maniac -- like someone decent with training -- had a gun
there too?
Nah, you'd probably just throw up your hands and say it's hopeless,
watch the cops with black guns and black masks on TV, and push for some
law to write down the names of gun owners on an FBI list, for safety.
