No, that is not the irrational part. In fact, his suggestion is the first rational, practical solution to school shootings that has come out. It is the reaction of gun control advocates that proves to be irrational. They are aghast.The mere suggestion has been called "shameful." The gun control crowd is so emotional about this that they have taken to repeating LaPierre's words as if the "idiocy" is so self-evident that no additional comment is required. This is all very much akin to their slogan that "more guns is not the answer." And at first blush, that would seem to make sense. I mean, fewer guns wound mean fewer shootings, right? Well, maybe, if you were able to reduce the number of guns in a "socialistic" manner. That is if you were able to reduce the number of guns equally; those in the hands of good guys, and those that are in the hands of bad guys and the mentally ill.
But let's just look at the possibility and problems with restricting gun ownership. First, there is that niggling item called the second amendment. But let's just use the magic wand on it for purposes of this discussion. Let's say we were able to wave our wand and the second amendment vanishes. And we are now free to restrict guns in America as much as we wish. Furthermore, we have decided to skip the usual legislative process and agree to abide by whatever President Obama or Michael Bloomberg want. They can decide anything from the types of weapons that can be owned to a complete ban.
The first, biggest and some would say insurmountable, problem is that the lowest estimate of the number of guns privately owned in the United States is 270 million. And due to "assault weapon" bans that have been implemented in the past as well as the prospect of future bans, sales of those very weapons have exploded in recent years. Just this week as talk of reestablishing the ban has increased, Walmart sold out of AR-15s. Back when Clinton signed the first ban it was AK-47s that flew off the shelf. Now can we just recognize that anybody buying such a gun under such conditions, is not going to march down to the police station and hand them in upon presidential decree? Now there will be owners who will turn over all their guns. Those would be the good guy, law abiding citizens. They would be the only ones who would willingly disarm themselves. Why? Because they are law abiding citizens!
So you won't collect a single bad gun, but you'll completely disarm the good guys and make criminals out of everybody in between. Amazingly, this sort of thing is being fantasized about by those who claim that placing guards in schools is not practical. So what about just restricting the type of weapon or it's features? The first assault weapons ban cited some purely cosmetic things like pistol grips and flash suppressors, but also large capacity magazines and armor piercing bullets. And since the latest shootings the large capacity magazines have come under scrutiny again. This is a stupid debate.
There's an old joke about the guy who says the woman at a the bar, "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" To which she answers "Yes."
"Well then" he continues, "Would you sleep with me for twenty bucks?"
"No, what kind of a girl do you think I am?"
"We've already established that, we're just arguing over price now."
The debate about the type of weapon used is strictly about body count. Yes, had Adam Lanza had to use a revolver or a bolt action rifle, the death toll would likely have been lower, but there would be no guaranty of that. And I contend that a homicidal maniac wielding a sword could kill just as many. The key factor is not what kind of weapon is used, it's the fact that the targets are unarmed women and children. There is nothing about an assault weapon ban that would prevent a single future shooting, and wouldn't even prevent that type of weapon from being used.
Do you really want to talk about prevention? Then we need to stop talking about passing laws. Laws do not prevent crimes, they deter them. And deterrence depends, to a large degree, on a rational, thinking person weighing their actions. This is something that appears to be in short supply among homicidal maniacs (and Islamic terrorists.)
So why is placing armed guards in the schools irrational? I noticed that whenever I have been to an IRS or other government office, they usually have an armed guard. Nobody is bothered by armed guards at airports. We've had armed guards at banks for hundreds of years. Makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense are school shootings in the first place. And I think part of the problem is that since people can't make sense of the shootings, the idea of defending against them seems illogical too. So you get a lot of, "So the solution is to make our schools armed fortresses? That's crazy!!" And that's the end of their argument.Wayne LaPierre suggested the one thing that actually stands a chance of preventing another school shooting and is denounced as deranged. Armed guards are so ridiculous as to be unworthy of discussion. We need to talk about substantive issues like the size of the clip and whether or not it has a pistol grip.
No comments:
Post a Comment