In the aftermath of the Newtown Connecticut school mass casualty attack, liberals who never “let a crisis go to waste” are again trying to disarm law-abiding American citizens.
Yes, it is exactly backwards, but then we’re used to that from liberals, no?
Nonetheless, lets us ignore these larger issues and focus on school shootings…. not shootings at schools which is the accurate description of this latest incident in which a student was wounded at my Taft California alma mater last month.
Why are schools targeted? Simply because most “active shooters” are students or former students or have a direct connection with the school, and because schools are by and large “gun free zones”–a mind-numbingly idiotic non-solution to violence.
Especially in life and death situations, common sense should be the uppermost consideration; sadly, it is emotion, not thinking, that rules the day. Before the body bags have been carted off some left winger is attacking the Second Amendment.
The first question for such a non-critical thinker should be… “what does gun control have to do with dead children?”
Invariably, the anti-gunners immediately attack and blame law-abiding citizens instead of providing ways to stop these mad men who attack soft targets.
The simple answer, as the Sandy Hook School District has quickly learned the hard way, is that armed staff is the only answer to the mass murder of innocent children in their schools.
This community should be commended; the citizens now realize (far too late) that violence must be met with violence or the threat thereof.
But they didn’t go far enough because the plan called for an armed law enforcement officer.
Once again common sense is in absentia; one officer with one firearm can only protect the area he occupies…. Take the recent Taft Union High shooter; he was in the science building, second floor as I recall. If the “resource officer” had been in the main building or the gym or the practice field at the time, it would have taken him minutes to get to the shooter.
Far too late; one armed officer is only effective in a one-room school house.
The answer? Allow willing teachers and staff with proper training and education under state laws to carry concealed weapons. In military parlance, this is a force multiplier and once again, common sense. When schools are heavily publicized as having a concealed carry staff, the potential killer doesn’t know if he would face one gun or 50. As a result he looks for some other target or gives up his twisted plan completely.
I can hear the hand wringers already, but their arguments do not hold up. We have armed guards in banks protecting our money, but not our six-year-olds. How can anyone defend such a position?
Armed guards protect any number of celebrities, politicians, CEOs, millionaires and others. Why aren’t the anti-gunners worried about these guns in public? Are they more concerned about Beyonce’s safety or their own children?
Parents think nothing of placing their child’s life in the hands of an 16-year-old lifeguard at the local pool, but insist their child should be left absolutely unprotected at school.
Does anyone doubt that each and every grieving family in Newtown (regardless of what they say in their five minutes of TV fame) wishes deeply that an armed teacher had been in those classrooms?
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Doesn’t the Declaration proclaim that as human beings we have the God-given rights listed above? Then why do we strip those rights from teachers and staff facing a potential deadly attack on their schools.
Time and time again teachers and administrators have sacrificed their lives to protect our children; their courage and willingness to do so is not in question, so knowing they will face down a gunman unarmed, why do we deprive them of the ability to save their own lives and others?
Common sense.
How can we have liberty and the pursuit of happiness if we do not have life? If you are hired at the local school you are essentially saying that you are willing to die in a futile attempt to save the lives of your students whose parents denied you the right to save your own life.
Fair warning.
If not me, who? If not now, when?
Any community in America has all resources it needs to prevent or lessen the chance of school shootings.
Retired, reserves and former military. I have coffee every morning with a group of men who have a wealth of experience and training with firearms. This includes a former concealed carry instructor, a veteran of four decades of military and law enforcement experience with firearms, as well as other combat veterans.
And you are telling me that we would not volunteer to protect little kids for a few hours?
There are literally millions of retired and former military, reservists, former and retired law enforcement officers, competitive shooters–not to mention those who have private security backgrounds earned with top security agencies and contractors who have worked in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Do we really believe that there is a valid, deep concern about the ability of these men to protect children?
- Read John Lott; hundreds of thousands of criminal acts have been routinely stopped by armed citizens.
- Too expensive?
- Bull. America is the most “volunteering” society in the world. I could get a volunteer group of licensed armed volunteers to guard a grade school in a few phone calls. They are the same men who responded to Bunker Hill and Lexington, and they will respond now.
This country was better off when we were called on by the sheriff to form a posse; it’s called “skin in the game.”
I wish liberals agreed.
It’s for the children.
LeatherneckM31 