Friday, October 06, 2006

The Worst Idea Ever

With the recent spate of school shootings, there has been a call from neocons and other psychos to arm principals and custodians in our nation's schools.

This is the dumbest fucking idea I have ever heard and it really demonstrates the level of sheer stupidity on the part of some conservatives.

Talk about a knee jerk, fear mongering based reaction. Yes, it is sad and horrible that some students have been recently shot at school. It is also extremely sad and horrible that 40,000 people will lose their lives in automobile accidents this year...and next year...and the year after that. Where is the drastic reaction on auto accidents? Put it in perspective, people...c'mon!

Putting guns in schools is NOT the answer to this problem. The chances of it being used or stolen once it's in there is more than likely going to increase the level of violence in schools. This issue demonstrates the problem with gun advocates: having a gun does not automatically mean your safe. It is an illusion. In fact, I bet if every school was armed to the teeth there would still be the same amount of school shootings or more. It is not going to solve anything. It will not be a deterrent. Guns do not protect you from anything. We do not live in Darfur. There are not hoards of psychos gunning for our women and children.

Most kids will go their whole school careers and not get shot at. There are plenty of other things to worry about, believe me. The media takes stories like these and blows them so far out of proportion that soon all of us will believe that our children are constantly in jeopardy from being shot. In the case of Fox News, their wall to wall coverage of the Amish shootings is a hilariously veiled attempt to distract its viewers from the Foley scandal and drum fear into them as way to energize their disenchanted base.

Don't give in to the fear, folks. Stop listening to these mouth breathers that are part of the problem and not part of the solution. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.


Anonymous said...

You'll get no argument from me.


Anonymous said...

I don't think we need guns in schools.

But when you say "having a gun does not automatically mean your safe. It is an illusion", I disagree.

There are hundreds of not thousands of incidents each year where a gun has also been used to prevent or stop a crime from happening.

blk said...

1) Guns do not provide protection. They are not armor. They are offensive only.

2) The more guns there are in a society, the more likely they are to fall into criminals' hands. There's no way around it. Inevitable carelessness by gun-owners and break-ins by burglars would provide fairly easy access to guns even if we had perfect controls to prevent minors and criminals from buying them -- which we don't. In fact, Congress just passed a law that gives a huge break to gun dealers who sell weapons to crooks.

3) Criminals are the bad guys. They shoot first. Since guns provide no defense, they are useless against first-strike attacks.

4) If principles and custodians have guns, they will simply be the first to be shot -- in the back, most likely.

5) Schools have many more classrooms than custodians and principles. They cannot patrol an entire school. Besides, these people have real work to do. The only way to provide real security would be to batten down the schools with metal detectors at security checkpoints, staffed by an army of armed and trained guards. This would cost billions upoin billions of dollars.

6) How you like to be the principle whose gun fell into the hands of a child who killed 10 classmates? Or the janitor who mistakenly shot a child he thought had a gun? With hundreds of thousands of guns in the schools, both these outcomes are inevitable -- it happens to cops regularly, and they handle weapons for a living.

7) The Middle East has suicide bombers who target cops, US troops, politicians, opposing religious groups, etc., to achieve political ends. The United States has suicide gunmen who target children and teachers in schools to get attention.

Both societies are fundamentally sick.

Conservative American culture demands that violence be the first response -- from starting a war against Saddam Hussein for defying George Bush's will, to demanding the death penalty for an ever-growing host of crimes.

For people who claim to follow the Prince of Peace, it is a curious attitude.

Anonymous said...

1) Guns do not provide protection.

Meanwhile, out in the real world...

Seeing two men force their way into his Hillsborough, N.C., house while he was working on an neighbor’s boat, Danny Jones, Jr. investigated. After he was attacked by the intruders, he made his way to his pick-up truck, retrieved a gun, and fired a shot that killed one of his assailants. The other suspect fled. Police said Jones would not be charged. (, Raleigh, N.C., 10/2/06)

Echo Press, Alexandria, MN, 04/19/06 According to police, four young men intended to burglarize the home of an elderly couple. Two men wearing masks entered the home and woke up the couple. After a verbal exchange, the woman yelled to her husband to get his gun. The man was on his way when the suspects ran from the house, got in their car and fled the scene. The homeowners called 9-1-1, and the suspected burglars were apprehended shortly afterward.

Star- Tribune, Minneapolis, MN, 7/12/96 Three would-be burglars hot-wired Al Novak's conversion van and then used it as a vehicular battering ram to crash through the front of his Minneapolis, Minnesota, gun shop. Novak, who has lived in a small apartment in the shop for the past 16 years, was awakened by the commotion and confronted the unwelcome guests with his 9 mm. "They took one look at me and went back out the same way they came in," said Novak. It was the fourth time his shop had been burglarized since 1980.

Daily Southtown, Tinley Park, IL, 05/25/06 Police say that a youth broke into a gun collector's home to steal from his collection and found a gun, but not the way he intended. The homeowner, a 78-year-old retired firefighter, heard a ruckus and found the intruder in a rear bedroom. The youth hit the man with a pair of pruning shears and ordered him around the house in search of guns and cash. When his assailant went into another room, the man grabbed a .38-caliber revolver and opened fire. The teen was taken to the hospital, suffering from wounds to his arm, buttocks and thigh. He was charged as a juvenile with attempted murder, aggravated battery and home invasion.

Boston Globe, Boston, Mass., 12/8/04 Three robberies had occurred in the last six months at Fred's Gas Auto Service in Medford, Mass. When the clerk on duty recently was confronted by two masked men, one waving a gun, he drew the pistol he was licensed to carry and fired. One robber was seriously injured, and the other fled the scene. "It looked like self-defense," said Lieutenant Paul Covino.

The Oakland Tribune, Oakland, CA, 03/05/06 The manager of a cell phone store was behind the counter when two men brandishing pistols burst inside. Police say one would-be robber jumped over the counter and slammed the manager to the ground. A store employee tried to run, but she fell, and the crook behind the counter grabbed her arm and put a gun to her head. At that point, the manager grabbed his own handgun and shot the man holding the female employee, then shot the second robber as well. The suspects fled the store, but the manager identified one of them when he turned up at the hospital.

The San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco, Calif., 02/28/06 Sandra Phillips was about to take her two dogs for a walk when, according to police, an armed assailant dressed in black and wearing a ninja-style mask grabbed her outside her garage. The woman struggled, broke away and ran screaming into the house with the attacker in pursuit. Her screams awoke her husband, Lou Phillips, who grabbed his .357 Mag. revolver and fired three times. The intruder died at the scene. He had been carrying a gun, handcuffs, tarps, a blindfold and, curiously, a pocket full of hot dogs. The local police chief said the incident was "completely out of the blue" for the town.

The Reporter, Vacaville, Calif., 02/09/06 A man was talking to a friend outside his home one evening when four men approached and forced them inside the home at gunpoint. According to police, the suspects made the victim kneel on his living room floor, then forced him into his bedroom where they demanded money and property. The victim reached into his nightstand, but instead of grabbing cash, he produced a .38-caliber pistol. When the intruders attempted to wrest the gun away, he shot one of them twice in the torso, prompting the others to flee the scene. The injured burglar was later pronounced dead at the hospital.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee, WI, 03/29/03 David Franklin's crime spree through a Milwaukee, Wisc., neighborhood was cut short when one of his intended victims produced a gun and shot him. Milwaukee police said Franklin was suspected in six break-ins within blocks of his home. He apparently chose to break into homes where women lived; and if he caught a woman alone, he raped her. If the woman was not home, he would burglarize the house. Women in three of those cases were raped at gunpoint. The tables were turned on Franklin when he broke into a house and the woman resident shot him in the arm. He was arrested at a local hospital after police interrogated him as to how he had been shot.

You see, these stories aren't talked about as much as other stories. I could post hundreds event thousands of these stories but I'm sure you all get my point by now.

"Gunmen who target children" are the exception, not the norm.

Phil from Minnetonka said...

Crab - I'm convinced. We all need to be armed and highly trained. What a great country it would be if we were all highly trained snipers and such. Wow, I'm feeling safer already. Nothing gives me more comfort that sleeping with my finger on the trigger. In fact, I cannot think of a more relaxed state than when one is carrying a loaded firearm.

We should meet all forms of violence with a mere escalation of said violence. That ought to solve the problem. That'll teach 'em! We should just shoot all the bad guys with guns, then there won't be any more of them.

[Dripping sarcasm ends here.]

In all the cases Crab cites, the guns did not prevent the victims from being attacked - ie, providing "protection" - they provided a "response".

I think they only way guns provide protection is blatant and obvious NRA signage at your home. If you're the neighborhood gun nut, no one in the neighborhood messes with you. And if someone outside the neighborhood messes with you, they are likely to receive a response.

So, to sum up, the loaded pistol in the nightstand provides the ability to respond to attack. It does not protect you from attack.

Anonymous said...

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. You're taking those situations to a pretty far reaching conclusion with your whole "sleeping with your finger on the trigger" line.

It will teach em. I only wish that each and every one of those scumbags breaking and entering someones house would have been shot and killed on sight.

Notice all of the examples I used were from blue states. hoho, heehee, hahahahahahaha

Didn't prevent anything? Did you conveniently skip over the examples from San Francisco and Milwaukee?

Notice that I'm not advocating any of you take up arms, you can do what you want.

Anonymous said...

Things legal guns are used vastly more often for than self-defense: Used more frequently by lawful owners to shoot their family members during a heated argument. The family's children play with the gun and shoot themselves or a friend. Stolen by burglars, and now an illegal gun, used to commit crimes.

I don't have stats at hand, but would bet, guns also are often taken away from their owners when they try to defend themselves and then used against them.

The stats for the rest of the developed world speak for themselves. We have permissive guns laws and we have lots of gun violence. The rest of the first world doesn't have the gun violence we do, because they don't have the guns. Except Canada who has as many guns as we do per capita, but still radically less gun violence. Easy access to guns and a violent culture yield the kind of gun violence the US has most of the monopoly on.

BLK, great points all.

Crab, I think your response makes sense, but to a different question. I don't think it addresses what BLK said. Guns aren't armor, they are a reaction; not protection.

I agree with everyone on the blog; guns in schools is a bad, bad, bad idea.

Anonymous said...

Yeah but people getting shot in the face is funny as long as you disagree with their politics...look back in the archives....the precedence has been set (and not by me).

Anonymous said...

I don't think it's funny and I don't think you think it's funny either.

Just because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean I'm filled with venom and vitriol for them.

Anonymous said...

I know you don't find humor in it...neither do I.

"Just because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean I'm filled with venom and vitriol for them."


Another precedence that has been set on here is that the founding fathers were northeastern liberals. Here's some quotes from those liberals...

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent..., or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

BLK can think what he wants, I disagree. The beauty of this situation is that he can choose to not own a gun and I can choose to own a gun. Are there advantages and disadvantages to each choice? Sure. Is one way the better way to go about things? Who can say, both of us can find facts to prove our respective positions.

Mark Ward said...

Crab, enough already with the shot in the face and laughing thing. The reason why I think it is funny is NOT that someone got hurt (although it is nice to know that you think that shooting people is a bad thing). It's funny because Dick Cheney is a macho gun nut who thinks he rules the world. He got drunk and shot his friend in the face so that makes him an idiot and I think THAT is funny. Here's a guy whose whole raison d'etre is to preach about how guns, in the hands of honest people, are safe...and then he goes and shoots someone in the face. It's not funny in the sense of "ha ha"'s the irony that is amusing. The fact that you are still belaboring the point makes me think that it really must bother you that someone on your side could be so stupid.

Your quotes on freedom are nice....but remember they were written at a time when assault rifles and Uzis did not exist. And they were written to arm citizens and protect them from their government not from each other. The only reason why anyone should have a gun is to take back their government.

Anonymous said...

Mark, totally agree with you on the original intention of the the 2nd ammendment. What was thought reasonable and even necessary may not apply in today's world.

Crab, you also make a good point about choosing to own a gun or not and the consequences of each decision. I just don't see any benefits that outweigh the risks. You must. I would like most guns to be illegal for citizens to own. I realize that isn't a reality in the US today and may not ever be until a lot of things change about our national character. However, owning hunting rifles and shotguns is one thing, owning assault rifles and handguns is another. I'd like to see the day that assault rifles and handguns are in the hands of our military and police only. I have my doubts about seeing that day, but that's the gun control I believe in.

Anonymous said...

No, the person saying "enough already" is the person who is bothered here. Now you say it is the irony, but then you said "If it was Al Gore you would be laughing also Crab" and you got proved wrong. The ego you have built around your record of invented rightousness got bruised a little. It happens to all of us, no big deal.

Not buying that it was just the "irony", no one should ever laugh about anything where soemone almost dies. But I forget, liberals are the only side who is able to see the "human" side of things.

It doesn't make him an idiot. Accidents happen all the time and they are the exception, not the norm. Cheney had an accident that day, know that 99.9% of hunters "didn't" have an accident that day. In other words - guns on the hands of honest people are indeed safe.

Mark, you have a record on this blog of adherance to the constitution of the United States on a number of issues. Your point about something being "written at a different time" is the point PL and I made regarding wiretapping, financial surveillance, the agenda of the ACLU, and so forth.

How convenient on your part. Are you telling me that the founding fathers had nukes or suicide bombers in mind when writing about Freedom from Unreasonable Searches?

Anonymous said...

Like all of you, I'd also like to see less gun violence. However, criminals (by their nature) are not likely to give a damn about gun control laws. So then the only people armed are criminals and police, and the criminals outnumber the police.