One morning recently, the 5 a.m. radio news woke me up with the story that there had been a multiple shooting in two or three Islam Mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.  First reports were that there were numerous victims killed and wounded in each – also that the perpetrator had used two military-grade rifles, and this in a nation with extremely strict gun control laws.

Particularly restricted are “side arms” – that means pistols.  Shortly later, the story came out that the killer had posted on the Internet his multi-page statement of being against Islam “invaders” and the U.S. media stated that he was a “white, right-wing extremist” – or words to that effect.  As this is written, it still is not clear from media reports just what the killer’s motive might have been, although a few choices come to mind.

Nearby Australia has even more strict gun laws. A few years ago, the government ordered guns collected and proceeded to destroy them.  Some of those destroyed were reported to be museum quality antiques or of special historical importance.  In my opinion, that action really borders on being criminal – even “down under.” 

Reports from there since that time have held that their murder rate multiplied, providing accuracy to the bumper stickers that proliferated a few decades ago that read: “When guns are outlawed – only outlaws will have guns.”

Almost immediately came a report from Holland of multiple deaths from a shoot-em-up in a train there.  This has so far been presumed to be a terrorist incident. 

Again, the incident was located in a so-called “soft target”where no guns would be allowed, except for law enforcement.  As last reported, the culprit had not been apprehended or interrogated.

Frankly, it is not much if any comfort to hear of such activities elsewhere, but over time we seem to have become more resigned to hearing about them.  In a way, it could be considered somewhat surprising that we have not had more such reports right here at home. 

Perhaps the Imperial Japanese Military establishment had it right when, after our victory, captured documents reportedly stated that it had been decided not to invade continental United States “because there is so much privately owned and used weaponry that the loss of troops would be prohibitive.”  That report has not had the wide distribution that it should have received, but in the late 1940s, it had been fairly well spread, at least to former military and patriotic groups.

In addition, we are now in the situation where all Boeing 737 Max the, latest models, have been grounded, world wide, because of two odd crashes within a couple of months.  Both were of planes owned and operated by Third World nations and occurred shortly after take off.

Reportedly, there was a sudden dive into the ground.  Immediately the “green agenda” group was calling for their grounding while our FAA and NTSB took a more logical approach but finally joined the party.  It seems, in my opinion, that no one even gave a thought to the possibility of terrorist activity.

 In the meantime, the airlines, particularly American-owned private enterprise companies, must suffer the losses of having to make payments on planes sitting on airport ramps losing money.  Foreign airlines usually are owned by the governments, so that isn’t critical.  And, logically, Airbus management must be gloating.   

While our sympathies are with those lost, and more importantly their survivors, it is hoped that the true causes can be quickly determined and the planes returned to service. It seems critical to me that our government officials elevate the level of security and research to keep us safe here.

And that definitely includes supporting PRESDT-45 in efforts to build the wall, and I mean a wall.