the crazy just keeps piling on.

Wow…the story on the nutcase professor who dusted her colleagues in a faculty meeting is just getting stranger by the day.

Let’s recap:

  • Blows her brother away with a shotgun, and tries to carjack someone at gunpoint right after, but is never prosecuted.  Incidentally, her Mom’s on the personnel board of the local PD, and the Chief calls the jail to get her released on the day of the incident.  DA never files charges.
  • Her supervising professor at Hahvahd gets a pipe bomb in the mail, coincidentally a few days after an argument with the little bowl of Froot Loops in question.  Incidentally, she was worried he’d give her a bad review.
  • Gets into an altercation with a woman at an IHOP in Massachusetts over a high chair, slugs the woman in front of her kids.  Charges brought, unsupervised probation and anger management classes ordered.
  • Finally, pulls out a heater at the aforementioned faculty meeting, kills three and wounds three more.

Can you say missed warning signals?  I knew you could. 

Now, I know it’s a natural reaction for friends and family of a mass murderer to believe in their Loved One’s innocence, and say stuff like, “We had no idea how this could have happened”…but be honest with yourselves here.  If you knew your spouse had shot her brother when she was a kid, and then she goes off on someone over a stupid high chair in a restaurant and slugs the other person in the face, it’s pretty clear that the family member in question has a few critical inhibitors missing in her brain.

Here’s where the Great Divide in the gun control debate happens between liberal and conservative/libertarian types.  One group claims that this proves the need for gun restrictions, so fruitbats like Dr. Bishop can’t get their hands on guns when they flip out.  The other group says that these cases prove gun control doesn’t work.  (Dr. Bishop shouldn’t have been able to acquire a firearm legally, not with her prior record…and she chose to ignore the law regarding homicide and A&B as well, so what’s another felony on top of that?)

Me, I’m tired of the debate.  The lines are pretty much drawn, and conversion of someone from one side to the other in the gun control debate is a rare event indeed.  I do know, however, that this is precisely why I carry a gun—because I don’t want to end up taking a bullet in front of my kids because some basket case decides to get pissed off at me for taking the last booster seat at the IHOP.  Of course, those who support disarming everyone claim that my gun makes me more likely to be that person going ballistic at the IHOP.  (They inevitably call me paranoid for being mindful of the fact that I may be in the wrong place at the wrong time.)  In the end, everyone’s got to make their own call on that issue, but I always wonder who’s more paranoid—the person who wants to be able to protect themselves against the (thankfully rare) homicidal loons out there…or the person who wants to disarm everyone instead?

Here’s why I favor the “carry a gun” approach.  If you use the “Ban All Guns” method, you treat all your fellow citizens as potential killers, and impose preemptive restrictions on them as if they are.  You use prior restraint, and reduce everyone’s rights to those of the least responsible members of society.  If you use the “Carry A Gun” approach, it may be true that you treat all your fellow citizens as potential killers, too….but you don’t infringe on the rights of those who have no desire or ability to do you harm (which in both cases is the vast majority of the population.)  Which approach is the more ethical and moral one?

40 thoughts on “the crazy just keeps piling on.

  1. Matthew Carberry says:

    A bit orthagonal to the main thrust of the post but you might add:

    DA is now sitting US Representative, as yet faces no fallout from decision not to charge as linkage is not made in most press stories. Police taking heat alone.

  2. Jay G. says:

    You know where I’m voting, Marko.

    If anything, Fruity McBat is the poster child for why gun control does not, cannot, and will not work. If there was ever someone who should have been prevented from owning guns, she was it – one homicide under her belt, at least one case of assault with a deadly weapon (she pointed the gun at a car dealer the day she killed her brother), and the A&B over the high chair.

    This woman is exactly who we should be trying to keep away from guns, yet instead, she skates on by, helped along by family connections, corrupt politicians, and utterly incompetent police forces.

    And yet they want to take *my* guns away from me for something that *I* will never do?

    No. I don’t think so.

  3. anonymous says:

    You know what’s heartening, though?

    In spite of the best efforts of “academia” as populated and personified by the socialists who control it, young people, far more than we might fear or have any right to expect, really do “get it”.

    From a story I excerpted in comments at Tam’s the day this popped her cork:

    “Gina Hammond, a UAH student, told WAFF that she lobbied the University of Alabama trustees to allow students with gun permits to carry their weapons on campus. She was turned down.

    “… I’m sorry that nobody in that room had a pistol to save at least one person’s life,” Hammond said.”

    You go, girl. It seems that there may indeed be hope for our youth and our future.

    Al Terego

  4. anonymous says:

    that would be:

    “…comments at Tam’s the day this *nutjob* popped her cork.”

    Just to clarify that it wasn’t Tam that popped her cork…not her style, and push come to shove, it’s not her cork that I suspect might get popped.

    AT

  5. Tam says:

    ….but you don’t infringe on the rights of those who have no desire or ability to do you harm (which in both cases is the vast majority of the population.)

    You’re infringing on the people who want the right to go to IHOP without deadly weapons being in the room with their children.

    • Marko Kloos says:

      I must have the wrong copy of the Constitution, because there’s no such right listed in there anywhere.

      If we can just make up rights on the spot, I’ll counter by insisting on my right to go to IHOP with my kids while strapped without having to put up with whiny hoplophobes.

      • Tam says:

        Sure there is. It’s down there amongst the emanations and penumbras and suchlike. Like our new favorite Founding Father, Abraham Lincoln, said in the Gettysburg Address: “All men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, which clearly implies free access to health care and you need to leave your gat at home.

        • anonymous says:

          There we go. Don’t be leavin’ us dangling like that.

          But in your reference to Abe I think you mean “Funding Father”…

          AT

  6. anonymous says:

    “…people who want the right to go to IHOP without deadly weapons being in the room with their children.”

    Who in turn and in fact would infringe *my* right to possess the capacity to protect my own children from the odd “mad prof”.

    I assume you are being facetious and there is a followup…otherwise who are you and what have you done with our Tams?

    AT

  7. anonymous says:

    You slipped that addendum in on me, Marko. That makes my comment somewhat redundant, but in this case that is a good thing. Ms. Tam? AT

  8. AP/CP says:

    I have not been following this closely but noticed in one news story that, at the time of her “accidental” shooting of her brother, she fired 3 shots, only hitting him on the second. Has anyone mentioned if the weapon used was a pump of semi-auto shotgun? I suppose one could make a weak “bump-firing” case for a semi-auto, but with a pump? No way to fire 3 times by accident.

  9. Casey says:

    “You use prior restraint, and reduce everyone’s rights to those of the least responsible members of society.”

    I’m not sure if it’s because you’re a writer, or because you were born and educated somewhere other than America, but your ability to articulate a point that everyone should have understood already is just awesome. That line, while it is common sense, is never used in the arguments against against gun control. Your ability to reduce all the pomp and drama down to a a single line counter leaves me standing in awe.

    Casey

    PS- of course, it could be the Scotch talking, but I still think it’s a damned fine point🙂

  10. tjbbpgobIII says:

    This is the exact reason why liberals can’t be trusted with weapons. They are unable to control their emotions. People of the gun, on the other hand, who get the proper training and the unconstitutional permits are able to control themselves. We don’t go around beating down people who get in our way, we can laugh off any person who tries to put us down or injure us, in some way, not physically and we only go to condition red when absolutely necessary. You folks up there in Yankeeland can be assured that us redneck hillybillys here in Alabama will not let her walk on this one, except a short walk to a gurney and a needle about 50 years from now when shes finally put down.

    • Marko Kloos says:

      That’sa bit of an oversimplification, don’t you think? I know quite a few liberals who can control their emotions perfectly well, and quite a few conservatives who can’t.

      Let’s not make this a reflexive tribal thing, where you automatically designate every undesirable personality trait to Team Not Us, and claim every virtuous one exclusively for Team Us.

    • Connie says:

      “This is the exact reason why liberals can’t be trusted with weapons.”

      Hey, thanks. I guess all the hours I spent at the range were just a complete waste of time. Please excuse me while I attempt to get my uncontrollable emotions in check.

      • Kristopher says:

        That’s OK, we’ll wait for you to get yer emotions under control.

        I think he was exercising hyperbole. Or at least I hope he was exercising hyperbole.

  11. […] woman was all kinds of crazy. And gave off plenty of warning […]

  12. The MSM has discovered to their horror that her handgun was not registered and likes to slip that little tid bit into their description of the crime – “using an unregistered handgun……” – you get the drift. BUT, Alabama does not require registration or a permit to own a handgun. Furthermore, it is a “may issue” state for concealed carry. They also neglect to mention that regardless of how many times she had been arrested, a job application can only ask about CONVICTIONS. Since she was never convicted on any of previous activities, they would not have shown up on an employment background check and UAH would have had no idea about them.

    Amy Bishop is the price we all pay to maintain our personal freedoms but that point is lost on most folks.

    And have you noticed how quiet the libs are about her? Jeez, she was a Hahvahd PhD. She was one of us! Our kind of people don’t like guns!!

  13. Al T. says:

    Marko, tjbbpgobIII (IMHO) actually made a good point, though I would say “anti”, not liberal. When I worked with a bunch of anti-gun folks, they seemed to be in two camps – one, it’s OK for me, not for you and two, I can’t control myself, so just like a mirror, you can’t control yourself. These folks are honestly shocked that anyone would want a gun around. They do not get it at all. This is why I agree that engaging anti-gun folks is futile and few switch sides – either way. The folks to engage are the fence sitters. 🙂

  14. CAS says:

    Why do you say that Bishop shouldn’t have been able to aquire a gun legally? The only prior charges she faced were for the IHOP incident, and the CNN story doesn’t make clear 1) whether those were felony or misdemeanor charges (most likely misdemeanor); 0r 2) what the disposition was. It says she was given probation but, while I’m not familiar with Massachusetts law, there are various types of dispositions of criminal charges that don’t result in a criminal record, and for a first offense it wouldn’t be surprising if she received one of these.

  15. anonymous says:

    Marko, it may be simplification, but I think in this case the generalization is fairly justified.

    Like the other Al above says, “anti’s” don’t trust themselves, so therefore other “individuals” can’t be trusted.

    But it is the very definition of liberalism that causes them to trust *only* the popo and .gov with the capacity for deadly force.

    Sometimes labels are earned, and general or simplified statements are not “oversimplified”, just unvarnished truth. Not to say there aren’t plenty of dumbasses among conservatives, libertarians, etc. Like Ron White says, “you can’t fix stupid”, and stupid don’t care about politics.

    Al Terego

  16. Rusty P. Bucket says:

    Hi all~ I am sure yu all are waiting on pins and needles to hear what I have to say a bout this.

    In my opinion gun rights don’t enter into it at all. The fact is that many have been convinced that defending yourself and maintaining the peace is something only a trained cop can do, and that the job is better left to them to do.

    Carrying a gun isn’t your right and doesn’t even enter into it. Carrying a gun, and using it responsibly and safely to ensure your safety and those of your friends and neighbours should be a civic obligation. Further, if you are confronted with a loon like this woman, it should be your civic duty to press that trigger in defense of the public safety. Fact is that if we can’t trust our citizenry with guns, we can’t trust our cops or military with them either!

    Overall this one was a win for every one though. This silly old bitch was a lefty academic flake, and she went and killed a bunch of other ones.

    Maybe she should get a Noble Peace Prize like Obongo did…

    • Rick R. says:

      Wow. . .

      For once, I have to agree with Rusty.

      Until he started advocating the murder of unarmed people by homicidal maniacs, merely becuase the victims are lefty loons.

      • bluntobject says:

        I’m not a lefty, but I am an academic. (I don’t think I’m a flake, but it’s hard to know that about oneself, right?) Thanks for the advance warning, Rusty, and you’ll have better luck trying to murder me while I’m finishing up grad school in Canada.

        • anonymous says:

          Hmmm, this loony Hahvahd spawn solves sibling rivalry with fratricide, silences bad performance review with pipe bombs, and punishes those who deny her job security with mass murder.

          She’ll be hanged in ‘Bama in a decade or three, as she should be (of course a strapped-up janitor could have saved the taxpayers a ton of money and maybe even a few lives if he were, you know, allowed to).

          Still, many a prof that *is* tenured arguably will commit far greater carnage over the course of his/her “academic” career.

          Maybe that was ol’ Rusty’s point. (dude, you gotta work on your presentation; you can kill more commies with a spoonful of sugar added to the arsenic).

          Al Terego

        • Rusty P Bucket says:

          Ha ha! I will take that under advisement Al!

          And don’t none of you little libertarian chits get any ideas about dosing poor old Rusty’s metamucil with rat poison neither.

          Better not turn my back on my own kids too now that I think o f it…

        • Kristopher says:

          As long as you don’t attack us first physically, Rusty, we libertarian chits are harmless.

          It’s like not inviting a vampire into your home. If you don’t ever strike the first blow, the most a libertarian will do is talk you to death.

        • Matthew Carberry says:

          Or shed Wookie fur on your couch, but that just lint-rollers up. =)

  17. […] The crazy just keeps piling on (The Munchkin Wrangler) […]

  18. Chang says:

    I think it’s clear they should ban science fiction and pancakes, give everyone guns and force them to read romance novels.

    • Tam says:

      …give everyone guns and force them to read romance novels.

      Bad sequencing.

      Give me a gun and good luck forcing me to read a bodice-ripper.

  19. Shootin' Buddy says:

    I’ve yet to meet a Murderer, Attempted Murderer or Manslaughterer without a really cool collection of warning flags.

    • Rick R. says:

      I seem to recall that the figure of 80% (or was it closer to 90%?) of all murderers have a prior history of felonies or violent crminal behavior.

  20. Windy Wilson says:

    Judging from the most recent mass murders, perhaps she was suffering from pre-post traumatic stress disorder?

    And Mr. Carberry, is this the same DA who was so instrumental (with emphasis on “MENTAL” and all it implies) in the prosecution and persecution of that child molestation case?

  21. Matthew Carberry says:

    Windy,

    Yes, the now-Rep. Delahunt. The Fells Acre Pre-school witch hunt was under his watch. There are other “controversies” under his belt but a lot of that stuff just comes with the territory of being a DA and I don’t know the details enough to critique.

    In this case though it certainly appears there were seriously bad choices made, whatever the intent. Looks like he may be retiring.

  22. totwtytr says:

    “the little bowl of Froot Loops in question.”

    Yet another reason why you will have a novel published and I never will.

    Not only hilarious, but incredibly accurate.

  23. pervocracy says:

    The lines are pretty much drawn, and conversion of someone from one side to the other in the gun control debate is a rare event indeed.

    I converted. I was in the Million Mom March against gun rights just a few years before buying my first gun. It wasn’t Internet arguments or horror stories in the news that swayed me, though–it was learning how many of the people I already knew and respected in real life were responsible gun owners. “Lots of good people carry guns” isn’t nearly as persuasive as “Erica next door is a good person and she carries a gun.”

  24. Todd Romero says:

    At least he didn’t get arrested in Arizona. They have some of the most severe penalties in the US. Read about the penalties enforced under Arizona DUI law, not too pretty.

Comments are closed.