A bit of a roundup on the mass murder

All kinds of them out there, just a few pieces here I think good to see.
Mark Steyn on some of the attitude problems out there. He includes this, which I'd never read before about a school shooting in Canada:
Every December 6th, my own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the “Montreal massacre,” the 14 female students of the Ecole Polytechnique murdered by Marc Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, though you’d never know that from the press coverage). As I wrote up north a few years ago:

Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate — an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The “men” stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.

Junkyard Blog has a number of thoughts and links.

The Emperor links to two good pieces here. I'd like to call your attention to something from the second. It covers, among other things, a letter to the editor by Larry Hincker. You might remember him, he's the idiot mentioned here. Well, it seems a student who has a carry permit, but- obedient to the rules Hincker is so approving of- wasn't carrying, had the temerity to note that he did not like the feeling of being unarmed in the face of a spree killer running around(full letter in the post). I strongly urge you go read the full letter that Larry Hincker wrote; partly to get the full "I am an Elite, and therefore know better than you" attitude, and partly to witness the full level of stupidity and ass-covering in his words. In particular:
Wiles tells us that he didn’t feel safe with the hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high powered rifles encircling the building and protecting him. He even implies that he needed his sidearm to protect himself against the officers.

No, Mr. “I can’t believe he really wants to say that.” Larry Hincker, he does NOT 'imply' he needed to protect himself from the cops. And if you think he actually said that, then you're even more stupid and condescending than I thought. Since you're either too busy covering your ass to own up to it, or(quite possibly) too stupid and arrogant to see it, he's pointing out that the police got there after everyone was dead. They were not able to do anything except, at the very end, secure the crime scene and begin first-aid. Because, unfortunately, that's what usually happens, because the police are called either while the crime is being committed, or after it's over. So them showing up with rifles and shotguns and the bloody kitchen sink after it's over doesn't do much to protect you, now does it?

Two more bits:
The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Imagine the continual fear of students in that scenario. We’ve seen that fear here, and we don’t want to see it again.

No, you haven't 'seen that fear here'; you had your little politically-correct pants-wetting at the thought of someone ready and willing to use force in self-defense. NOW you have fear there, and it's not because of honest citizens with firearms. And no, you brainless jackass, he didn't say 'everyone packing heat'(and don't you just love the way he phrases that? must have made him feel all street-wise). He pointed out that disarming people who have received the training and the carry permit, just because they set foot onto the Holy Campus, is stupid. There would be no 'continual fear' unless some neuter like you worked to stir it up, because they would not know; there's a reason for the saying 'concealed means concealed'.
and
Who among us thinks the writer of the commentary would not have been directly in harm’s way if he showed himself to those tactical squads while displaying a deadly weapon? Would he even be here today to tell us the story? Contrary to his position, the writer’s commentary actually gives credence to the university policy preventing weapons in classrooms.

And it doesn't mean they'd go chasing around after the bad guy. It means guarding the door so the murderer can't get in; if he tries, he goes down. It could mean giving cover to other students so they can escape. And when the cops make it in, you set your sidearm down.

I can't cover any more of this crap, the "I am the All-Knowing One" attitude is enough to make you break things. And since Mr. Hincker isn't handy, that wouldn't be productive. Just go to Gonzo's, he says it nicely.