Larry Correia. Source |
Correia's blog post can be read in its entirety here, but here's his conclusion:
In conclusion, basically it doesn’t really matter what something you pick when some politician or pundit starts screaming we’ve got to do something, because in reality, most of them already know a lot of what I listed above. The ones who are walking around with their security details of well-armed men in their well-guarded government buildings really don’t care about actually stopping mass shooters or bad guys, they care about giving themselves more power and increasing their control.
If a bad guy used a gun with a big magazine, ban magazines. If instead he used more guns, ban owning multiple guns. If he used a more powerful gun with less shots, ban powerful guns. If he used hollowpoints, ban hollowpoints. (which I didn’t get into, but once again, there’s a reason everybody who might have to shoot somebody uses them). If he ignored some Gun Free Zone, make more places Gun Free Zones. If he killed a bunch of innocents, make sure you disarm the innocents even harder for next time. Just in case, let’s ban other guns that weren’t even involved in any crimes, just because they’re too big, too small, too ugly, too cute, too long, too short, too fat, too thin, (and if you think I’m joking I can point out a law or proposed law for each of those) but most of all ban anything which makes some politician irrationally afraid, which luckily, is pretty much everything.
They will never be happy. In countries where they have already banned guns, now they are banning knives and putting cameras on every street. They talk about compromise, but it is never a compromise. It is never, wow, you offer a quick, easy, inexpensive, viable solution to ending mass shootings in schools, let’s try that. It is always, what can we take from you this time, or what will enable us to grow some federal apparatus?
Then regular criminals will go on still not caring, the next mass shooter will watch the last mass shooter be the most famous person in the world on TV, the media will keep on vilifying the people who actually do the most to defend the innocent, the ignorant will call people like me names and tell us we must like dead babies, and nothing actually changes to protect our kids.
If you are serious about actually stopping school shootings, contact your state representative and tell them to look into allowing someone at your kid’s school to be armed. It is time to install some speed bumps.
As 'they' say, go to the link and read it all.
Columbine. Utter failure of armed guards to do anything to stop the killers.
ReplyDeleteWhat's next ? Free fire kill zones outside all entrances ? Warning shots to people approaching the school, Lexan laminates in all window openings ? Parents frisked before entering ? Armoured school buses ? Closing the street leading to the school to prevent truck bombs ?
You're not thinking this through and you're fast becoming part of the problem
Now before you go repeating the anti-gun talking points, be sure you get the story right.
ReplyDeleteNote that the 'armed guards' (there was only one armed Community Resource Officer, a Deputy Sheriff and an unarmed school security officer)were NOT IN THE school at the time. They had to respond from outside the school. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm.
Further note that at the time, police procedure called for them to wait outside for the SWAT teams, and that too has changed.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-19-columbine-police-tactics_N.htm
An armed teacher or administrator on the inside would have made a difference, and could have made ALL the difference.