Gun Control..and Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast
I listened to Florida legislators argue why school staff should be disarmed. I shook my head because their foolishness was so strong. This is the time when legislators need commons sense.. even if we have to give it to them good and hard.
Their arguments sound like this.
- We should protect our students with plastic no-guns signs since you can’t prove that a teacher won’t go crazy and shoot people.
- Any gun at school could go off, so how can you guarantee the safety of students and staff?
- Teachers are not trained Navy SEALs so they shouldn’t be allowed to have guns around our children.
- It is too expensive to hire Navy SEALS to protect our children, so let’s do nothing. And besides, we shouldn’t allow Navy SEALS in our schools if they have guns.
In short, the reason we should leave our children unprotected is that improbable things will happen, and bad solutions are worse than what we have now. That means we should leave our children at risk or do something irrelevant that the politicians want to do anyway.
I’m not convinced by these false choices. The choice isn’t between the perfect solution that we have now, or giving every teacher a gun. Perfection isn’t an option.
The choice isn’t between replacing all our teacher with combat veterans in armor, or hiding behind plastic signs.
These false alternatives ignore our real world experience. Protecting our students isn’t something we could do, but something we’ve already done in dozens of states. We have thousands of school staff going to school every day. They bring their gun and their medical kit with them to work the same way they carry them as they go shopping and out to dinner.
You don’t see the armed defenders around you, so you assume they don’t exist. Let me assure you. They are there.
The police say they can’t get to the violence in time to stop the murders. So what are we going to do to save lives until the police arrive? We face a simple choice. The next time a murderer comes to school, do we want trained school staff who are at the scene to be armed or disarmed?
This isn’t a self-defense problem; it is a psychological problem we have recognizing violence. Dr. William April described our problem this way,
“To properly plan for violence,
you must first admit and accept
that the world is not as it ought to be.”
Recognizing evil is easy to say, but it is psychologically quite difficult to do. The sad fact is that some people would rather look the other way and let our kids get killed than admit that some people are violent. These idealists do more than put themselves at risk: they put all of us at risk if they force us to adopt their blindness.
The question for us today is if Florida legislators will recognize this imperfect reality. Will we allow politicians to play political games in front of the press.. or will we apply enough political pressure that Florida legislators protect our children the same way they protect themselves at work?
Yes, Florida legislators can bring their guns to work. If an armed defense is good enough for the legislators, then it is good enough for our children too.
~_~_
I gave you 500 words. Please leave a comment and share the article with a friend. RM
SlowFacts 
Truth!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on depolreablesunite.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The TOP PRIORITY of the progressive socialist democrat party is to overcome the Second Amendment and disarm citizens.
High body counts in mass shootings, ESPECIALLY school shootings, are the proven best OPPORTUNITY for QUICK emotional passing of citizen disarmament laws.
Mass murders in a school are a best case OPPORTUNITY.
Armed teachers successfully stopping a mass murderer would reinforce the fact that “THE PEOPLE” are vastly better off with “The right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed”
THE BEST THING THE GOVERNMENT COULD DO IS GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!!!
No mandated “armed protector” as the sole defense (like the guy who stayed outside at parkland while everyone else was mandated by law to be defenseless . . . while they died)
Those who choose to legally exercise their right to bear arms will do so and be there. The more school shootings – the more will choose to exercise their right. (Supply and demand??? . . . kinda)
Always remember – their arguments do not make sense because the goal is not safe kids – the goal is CITIZEN DISARMAMENT!
Public safety is the DECEPTION to achieve CITIZEN DISARMAMENT!!!
(Then it all makes perfect sense)
LikeLike
This is not new. A quote from William S Burroughs, b. 1914, d. 1997
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.” William S. Burroughs
Those that believe that no one should have guns, or any other defensive weapon, will always find excuses for their beliefs and reasons for why they should be allowed to force these beliefs upon others.
They are not just mistaken.
They are not only misinformed.
They are not simply wrong.
They are evil and must be stopped!
– RR
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word….
LikeLike
I agree with the writer, evil does exist and we must not ignore it, thinking or hoping it will go away because it will not. Evil must be confronted and eliminated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If no one should bring a gun into schools then it follows that we should not have armed “resource officers” in schools. It further follows that Congress should forbid those armed by Federal authority from entering schools.
Every day in America parents who carry under Federal or State power enter schools bearing arms for teacher conferences or other activities. The schools are dis-empowered to exclude these officers. They carry at pleasure. Under the exclusionist arguments, the Federal and state governments should forbid its own officers from carrying arms in schools “because something MIGHT happen”.
Now, the argument properly shifts to the issue of training and self-discipline. Are Federal officers better trained and self-disciplined? How about the FBI Special Agent who had an accidental discharge when he picked his gun up off a disco floor after it fell from his holster when he was “busting a move”? How about the Deputy US Marshal who was carrying drunk in a NYC bar and brandished his gun? Who is better trained and self-disciplined? The cop who has become complacent because he knows his mistakes will be covered-up or excused by his agency? Or, the ordinary citizen who knows the embarrassment and consequences he will suffer if he makes a mistake?
LikeLike
We should concentrate on our shared beliefs with the anti gun crowd.
We say ” teachers and school staff should be allowed to have guns in schools to protect the children and themselves”.
They say “guns do not belong in schools”.
However, when a school is attacked the first thing anyone does is to call the police because then the anti gun people don’t mind having people with guns in the schools. People with guns then show up in time to count the bodies.
Conclusion; the anti gun people really don’t mind having guns in the schools-its just a matter of timing. We want guns in schools to prevent the children from being murdered-they don’t want guns in schools until after the children are murdered.
Since apparently the issue is not really about the guns in schools-only the timing-we should have discussions about which solution is best for the kids.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The blind ignorance is not limited to the left coasts. After a young woman came to Denver from Florida recently, passed a universal background check, bought a shotgun and went into hiding, the only reason law enforcement knew about a possible attack was her from social media postings. All schools in metro Denver and Boulder were closed. She was found after a massive “manhunt” and had committed suicide. The talking heads in the news were bragging about how much safer our schools are now that California style anti-gun laws have been passed.
If the schools are safer, why did all of the “gun free zone” schools have to be closed? What would have been the outcome if she did not post anything on social media?
The ignorant led by the ones that want a police state are a real threat to our security. Anytime that “common sense” is used as justification for more infringement, the real meaning is “you will lose more freedom”.
Rusty
LikeLiked by 1 person