An
Oregon college campus was the site of another mass shooting. Nine
innocent victims were killed before the deranged shooter took his own
life. Before nearly any facts behind the shooting were known, the
President was already on the air calling for more gun control laws.
Since we knew hardly anything about the shooting, how could the
President know that any gun law he was suggesting would have done
anything to prevent the shooting? He couldn't have known, obviously.
He was merely exploiting the tragedy to push his agenda. Shame on
him. However, we did know one thing about the shooting almost
immediately – it happened in a “gun free zone.”
I saw
this meme on FaceBook the other day. We defend the President with
guns. Celebrities defend themselves with guns. When money is
delivered to my office, I've noticed the armored car courier carries
a gun. Why then do we “protect” our most precious treasure, our
children, with signs that say, “This is a Gun Free Zone”? It
seems counter intuitive that if guns can help protect the President
from harm, that they couldn't also help protect children. Why then
do some people still want gun free zones – especially in the case
of protecting the children?
Not
being able to completely understand the insane logic known as,
“liberalism,” I did an internet search, trying to find out why
people think gun free zones are a good idea and found a lot of
rhetoric rebutting criticisms of the concept. Here are some of the
“facts” being presented by defenders of gun free zones: I took
these quotes from one
source, but I've found the same points being made by many people
so I'm considering them to be representative.
Mass
shooters are completely unconcerned about whether or not an area is a
“Gun-Free Zone.” A study conducted by Mother Jones found that,
in 62 mass shootings over 32 years, there were exactly zero instances
of a killer targeting a place because of a gun ban.
OK,
that's interesting. I've read some criticisms of the Mother Jones
study but let's assume this point is true. Even if mass shooters
never target any place because he thinks unarmed people are softer
targets, how is that an argument for gun free zones?
Furthermore,
thirty-six mass shooters in the Mother Jones study committed suicide
at or near the crime-scene, and 7 more committed ‘suicide-by-cop’
by engaging in a knowingly unwinnable shootout with police. This is
not the sort of behavior that suggests that mass shooters are
deterred by the prospect of gun-imposed security.
Hmmm.
It also shows the shooter is not deterred by a sign that says, “this
is a gun free zone.
Instead
of guns deterring crime, not one of the 62 mass shootings surveyed
was ended by an armed civilian
I'd
laugh if it weren't so tragic. If law abiding citizens are observing
the “gun free zone” restriction, it's not surprising that there
weren't any around to prevent or stop the shooting once it started.
Also,
does this study take into account those times when guns are used to
stop crimes? There is the case, for example, where an armed,
“resource officer,” Carolyn
Gudger, confronted a gunman at Sullivan High school, Blountville,
TN, and held him at bay until deputies arrived. The gunman was
killed in a shootout with the police. Since no students were harmed,
this incident didn't qualify as a mass shooting. However, it is
certainly a case where an armed civilian very possibly stopped a
massacre. I might post some videos sometime of showing guns being
used by civilians to stop criminals. It happens all the time.
Despite
the fact that one-third of our nation’s schools have armed guards
or officers, there is no evidence that these measures have deterred
or de-escalated mass shootings.
I
believe the Gudger incident I cited above is one example where an
armed guard deterred a mass shooting. Maybe there are more. But
let's again assume armed guards do not deter mass shootings. We can
still see clearly that neither are mass shooters deterred by gun free
zones! At least if there are armed guards present, there is someone
on hand to stop a shooting spree once it's started. That's not the
case in a gun free zone.
As I
read article after article defending gun free zones, what I mostly
saw were weak rebuttals to the criticisms of them. I found very
little arguments as to why we should have them in the first place.
The article where I found the quotes above only had this to say in
favor of gun free zones:
While
there is little evidence to validate the efficacy of armed guards or
officers, there is a plethora of research showing that a large armed
presence on school grounds institutionalizes the early
criminalization of Black and Latino males. Armed officers at schools
are quick to make arrests and write tickets, fast-tracking these
students into the criminal justice system, rather than college,
having an overall negative effect on net educational outcomes.
Am I
reading that right? Does it really say that if we have armed guards
in schools then blacks and Latinos are more likely to become
criminals? But then again, liberals are racists so it shouldn't
surprise me that they would think if a security guard arrests a
student, it must be a black student.
The
more common argument made in defense of gun free zones is the
possibility of accidental shootings. The cartoon I reprinted from
the Armed With Reason article paints a straw man image of students
walking around with rifles and lunch boxes. You do realize we're not
talking about having students carrying guns, right? Now, I concede that it is a
reality that the mere presence of a gun comes with the risk of
accidental injury. After all, it's impossible to accidentally
discharge a gun if there is no gun present. But apparently the President isn't so worried about that
possibility that he won't protect himself with armed guards. And by
the way, how is it that celebrities and the President think they
should protected with armed guards but don't think “the masses”
have the same right? We as parents in local school districts should be the ones to weigh the risks and make the final decision on how to protect our children. If Rosie O'Donnell wants to protect herself with armed, security guards, I demand we have the right to make that same choice to protect our children.
So
what's left then? Why are liberals so bent on imposing gun free
zones? I have a theory: I think liberals would really like to have
all of the US become a gun free zone where only the aristocracy
(liberal politicians, celebrities, and the mega-wealthy like Warren Buffet) have guns and “the people”
are unarmed. I believe that they think if students are raised in a
gun free environment, they will be less likely to protest tighter gun
restrictions in the future. I sincerely believe that gun free zones
aren't intended to make kids safer but are all about controlling us.
It's always about control with liberals.
No comments:
Post a Comment