Monday, September 7, 2009


Some lunatics may advocate Alternate Endings to the Montreal Massacre but these are just pipe dreams and their proponents certified idiots. Let's see. They begin by saying that Lepine single-handledly changed the face of Canadian gun politics and became the embodiment of everything that man-hating feminists despise. In their horror and their fear they lashed out at every Canadian male, and continue to do so today.

Gun enthousiasts say that “the blood of these fourteen women are not on the hands of every man”, and they are right. They continue with asking what the real problem was in Montreal that fateful December day: was it a lack of “gun control”? Certainly not. With the unlimited ammunition and time that Marc Lépine had available to him, he would probably have been able to achieve similar results even with a conventional readily accessible hunting weapon. Was it the failure of mental health officials? No. We didn't have “thought police” in 1989 and until the event, the shooter apparently didn’t exhibit much in the way of abnormal psychology. Was it the failure of police responding to the scene? Probably, yes. They formed a perimeter and sat outside waiting. No, what gun enthousiasts will tell you is that these are not the cause of this failure and of the high death toll.

OK then, what is the real problem, and what have these gunnuts to propose as a solution? They will say the failure of that day was with our manhood (Mark Steyn and cie) or the lack of it. They will point out that for thirty years, men had been “trained” to be obedient, to do what they’re told, to be more “feminine” and less “manly”. So they did exactly what the lunatic with the gun said. They left the room and abandoned their sisters to an horrific death. Let us point out that these women were not our sisters but feminists: the enemy. Although there is maybe some truth in them talking of the feminization of American men, they may have a point there in saying that it did these feminists a disservice that day.

The gun nuts will continue by stating that if a single one of those men had the courage to say “No!” and simply stormed Lepine, surely he might have been shot, even killed, but his actions would have showed clear leadership, and surely one or two other men would have joined in the battle. Lepine would have been taken down in the very first classroom, with perhaps three or four wounded or dead. Now that's gunnuts' first Alternate Ending. Apart from that’s never going to happen and who in their right mind is going to confront an armed madman in a school shooting? Let's give gunnuts their first victory, maybe it's a viable scenario!

Now let’s look at their second Alternate Ending, one that may disturb many Canadians today. Imagine if our laws were different and permitted to arm every Canadian, imagine our government permitting concealed weapons and lawful carry for any law-abiding citizen that can meet the same proficiency with firearms and use of force training as police officers. What happens then? Had there been a single law-abiding citizen with a concealed handgun in Montreal’s l’Ecole Polytechnique that fateful day in 1989, the outcome would have been different. It would have been swift and effective, so they say. They would have stopped Lepine dead.

Gunnuts say that every school shooting in North America happened in “Gun-Free Zones”: such schools that had as a published policy no legal firearms permitted. Gunnuts insist it didn’t help in Columbine, at Virginia Tech, in Dawson College, and it didn’t help in l’Ecole Polytechnique in 1989. So, the solution, according to them, is to permit a reckless Yahoo Texas culture to take over and having our streets filled with guns. Great! The next time a few people have an argument, say a family argument in a restaurant, everybody being armed means that everyone will start shooting. If you successfully vote and institute a policy like that, just don't forget one thing: an ample supply of body bags!

Coming back to Lepine, what if one or two citizens on site had a concealed weapon on them? They would have returned fire certainly! But what if one of them misses? He or she could wound bystanders, adding to the panic and the confusion. Lepine returns fire and take them both out, but is wounded in the process. Now Lepine is mortally wounded, but still has enough ammo. So, instead of wandering aimlessly, he decides to go slow and finish off everyone he has wounded. The result: Lepine dies of his wounds, having have time to shoot dead the last wounded. Total death toll: 28 victims (twice as many). Is that the happy ending that gunnuts wanted? If yes, then generalize gun ownership like in the happy dysfunctional Yahoo States, and see where this John Wayne mentality leads you. No problem!

No comments:

Post a Comment