David Huntwork
Liberal thinking in regards to "safe schools" is ridiculous
By David Huntwork
Liberalism, or 'progressivism' if you prefer, can be for many a very puzzling ideology to understand at times. The latest issue where common sense has been suspended for the sake of political expediency is the question as to whether or not armed guards or teachers should be allowed in schools. The premise being that the only true and constitutional way to protect the most vulnerable among us and only effective way to stop a mass shooter would be by armed intervention by another.
The logical mind would say that a trained and armed, law-abiding citizen is the one thing that would effectively stand between a school or other vulnerable place being an attractive target to the most sick and twisted among and a tragedy being prevented. Currently schools are little more than a building full of sitting ducks for those who might wish to turn it into a shooting gallery with there being no hope whatsoever of stopping anyone who would decide to vent their frustration with life and society on helpless children.
It's a pathetic state of affairs in a society where all concepts of personal responsibility, empathy for others, and the glorification of violence now permeates the culture and all forms of popular entertainment.
After the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut the National Rifle Association called for armed security at all schools. And any concealed carry advocates pointed out that 'gun-free' zones such as movie theaters have proven that they only attract those intent on harming large groups of helpless victims and do absolutely nothing to protect innocents. Since that shooting, there have already been several instances where armed persons have stopped a potential similar tragedy from occurring again because someone was armed and prepared to use force to stop the perpetrator.
The latest unfolded on Friday, February 1st.
Armed Guard Stops School Shooter After He Opened Fire at Atlanta Middle School
(http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/31/armed-guard-stops-school-shooter-after-he-opened-fire-at-atlanta-middle-school/)
I guess our liberal friends are aghast that, once again, their "solution" of gun-free zones has been shown to be fatally flawed. For them, guns are universally evil unless solely in the hands of the military or police, and even then they are viewed with great suspicion. To ever admit, even for a second, that an armed citizen might be able, available, and encouraged to be called upon or put in a position to save a fellow citizen from death and maiming by a madman is simply not acceptable to them. Even when that person might be trained and responsible, or someone that we otherwise put in a position of trust (pilots, teachers etc.).
In my home state of Colorado, a bill sponsored by my state senator that would have allowed teachers to carry concealed weapons in Colorado schools was recently defeated in a party line vote by Democrats. They would rather retain the status quo that leaves my children completely vulnerable and unprotected every single school day than provide them even a chance of being protected by an armed and trained individual. Explain to me how that is being responsible with the best interests of children in mind.
The typical idiocy of those who oppose the safe school concept was expressed in that particular debate by state Sen. Jesse Ulibarri, D-Commerce City, who asked whether armed teachers might just end up shooting their students, who would be in a crossfire.
"I want to make sure that I'm not allowing something worse to happen."
Really? Seriously? The idea that Sandy Hook, Aurora theater, or Columbine massacres might have "been worse" because of some mythical "crossfire" that has never before happened in the history of mass shootings but is trotted out a valid and reasonable excuse to keep unarmed children and citizens completely unprotected is simply asinine.
Such thinking is mind boggling. It's ridiculous, irresponsible, ignorant, dishonest, and ultimately dangerous in practice.
© David Huntwork
February 3, 2013
Liberalism, or 'progressivism' if you prefer, can be for many a very puzzling ideology to understand at times. The latest issue where common sense has been suspended for the sake of political expediency is the question as to whether or not armed guards or teachers should be allowed in schools. The premise being that the only true and constitutional way to protect the most vulnerable among us and only effective way to stop a mass shooter would be by armed intervention by another.
The logical mind would say that a trained and armed, law-abiding citizen is the one thing that would effectively stand between a school or other vulnerable place being an attractive target to the most sick and twisted among and a tragedy being prevented. Currently schools are little more than a building full of sitting ducks for those who might wish to turn it into a shooting gallery with there being no hope whatsoever of stopping anyone who would decide to vent their frustration with life and society on helpless children.
It's a pathetic state of affairs in a society where all concepts of personal responsibility, empathy for others, and the glorification of violence now permeates the culture and all forms of popular entertainment.
After the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut the National Rifle Association called for armed security at all schools. And any concealed carry advocates pointed out that 'gun-free' zones such as movie theaters have proven that they only attract those intent on harming large groups of helpless victims and do absolutely nothing to protect innocents. Since that shooting, there have already been several instances where armed persons have stopped a potential similar tragedy from occurring again because someone was armed and prepared to use force to stop the perpetrator.
The latest unfolded on Friday, February 1st.
Armed Guard Stops School Shooter After He Opened Fire at Atlanta Middle School
(http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/31/armed-guard-stops-school-shooter-after-he-opened-fire-at-atlanta-middle-school/)
I guess our liberal friends are aghast that, once again, their "solution" of gun-free zones has been shown to be fatally flawed. For them, guns are universally evil unless solely in the hands of the military or police, and even then they are viewed with great suspicion. To ever admit, even for a second, that an armed citizen might be able, available, and encouraged to be called upon or put in a position to save a fellow citizen from death and maiming by a madman is simply not acceptable to them. Even when that person might be trained and responsible, or someone that we otherwise put in a position of trust (pilots, teachers etc.).
In my home state of Colorado, a bill sponsored by my state senator that would have allowed teachers to carry concealed weapons in Colorado schools was recently defeated in a party line vote by Democrats. They would rather retain the status quo that leaves my children completely vulnerable and unprotected every single school day than provide them even a chance of being protected by an armed and trained individual. Explain to me how that is being responsible with the best interests of children in mind.
The typical idiocy of those who oppose the safe school concept was expressed in that particular debate by state Sen. Jesse Ulibarri, D-Commerce City, who asked whether armed teachers might just end up shooting their students, who would be in a crossfire.
"I want to make sure that I'm not allowing something worse to happen."
Really? Seriously? The idea that Sandy Hook, Aurora theater, or Columbine massacres might have "been worse" because of some mythical "crossfire" that has never before happened in the history of mass shootings but is trotted out a valid and reasonable excuse to keep unarmed children and citizens completely unprotected is simply asinine.
Such thinking is mind boggling. It's ridiculous, irresponsible, ignorant, dishonest, and ultimately dangerous in practice.
© David Huntwork
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
