The urgency of NOW

The entire issue of yesterday’s New York Daily News—I mean the entire issue, virtually every article and column—was devoted to the urgent, apocalyptic need to do something about guns NOW. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the like. The mass murder of first graders has affected people as nothing else ever has. But of course none of the proferred gun-control measures would make schools safe from gun violence. Nor is there any ready solution to the feminist- and divorce-generated mental sickness of so many young males. If people want an instant solution, something that will end the threat of school mass murders RIGHT NOW, there is only one way to do it: the adminstrators (and perhaps the teachers as well) in every school must be armed. That solution would work. But of course liberal feminist America rejects that idea outright. The same liberal-feminist mentality which by removing God and morality from society, demonizing maleness, and destroying male authority spawned the scourge of young male mass murderers, also stands in the way of the only immediately practicable way to stop the scourge.

- end of initial entry -

Mark L. writes:

Regarding your proposal to arm all school administrators and possibly teachers, I’ve already read the chortling on Facebook to the effect that such approaches will work until one disgruntled teacher decides to close his or her door and go on a killing spree inside the class.

Frighteningly, I can see the logic to that objection. After all, we’re talking about people who run the public school system here. “Go Educational” could become the next “Go Postal.”

What I’m hearing on the ground (and this being Canada, it’s 85 percent liberal) is:

(1) We expect that society will contain wackos; (2) We cannot do anything other than medicate said wackos (because after all, haven’t you seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest?); and (3) Given that a tiny proportion of said wackos will be sufficiently driven to carry out their homicidal thoughts, the widespread availability of guns will mean they can create far more destruction than they otherwise could, say, with a knife.

It’s hard to dispute point #3. The question is, what can be done to limit the destruction caused by armed wackos. Re-thinking our antipathy to institutionalization and our support for the culture of violence (movies, video games, etc.) and divorce, is clearly a step in the right direction.

But what I find is that liberals are very impatient people and not given to thinking deeply. They want solutions, but only those that can be implemented NOW!

And you can imagine what kind of laws will come out of such hysteria.

Paul K. writes:

What we are seeing now is the left’s implementation of Rahm Emanuel’s dictum, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” According to the left, this is the ideal time to pass legislation, while emotions are at their peak and reasonable opposition can be demonized.

NPR recently broadcast an interview between host Melissa Block and retired BATF assistant director Malcolm Brady on the subject of the AR-15. She asked him if he thought the Newtown massacre would tarnish the rifle’s image, making gun owners less likely to buy it. Brady said that, on the contrary, the incident was likely to increase its sales.

Block sputtered, “In the aftermath of this horrific shooting, where we have seen the faces of these children who were killed by this weapon, how can you say that that will actually increase sales?”

His answer: “Because the people who are buying them are buying them on the premise that ‘I can prevent that same thing happening at my house, or my business, or my location.’”

Which is, of course, correct. Block, a liberal, looks at the weapon and can only see it as a tool of evil. The fact that it might also be an excellent tool against evil is incomprehensible to her.

Liberals claim that gun-owners don’t need a weapon like the AR-15 for self-defense, but those who are committed to their own defense want the best possible weapon for the purpose, not one that is minimally adequate. What gun would liberals recommend for self-defense? Judging by the choice made by most of them, their answer is, “None at all.” This is why a discussion on gun control always breaks down along the lines of completely incompatible worldviews.

One of the few political battles that liberals have lost in recent years is on concealed carry laws, which have passed in 49 out of 50 states despite liberal opposition. Liberals claimed that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns would lead to Wild West-type shootouts in our major cities. In fact, without exception, states saw a decrease in violent crime after the passage of concealed carry laws. Did that persuade liberals that their fears were unfounded? No, they continue to oppose such laws. That law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry handguns for self-defense enrages them. The belief that guns are responsible for crime is so central to their philosophy that it cannot be overcome by evidence to the contrary.

Similarly irrational is the liberals commitment to purely symbolic measures such as “Gun-Free School Zones.” What possible purpose can this serve other than to assure mass murderers that their victims will be helpless? Gun-rights activist Tom Gresham writes:

We do know that a suicidal monster intent on killing as many people as possible will usually find a way to at least start. How it ends is a variable. We have the record of a number of school and church shootings being stopped by someone—a principal, students, a trained woman who volunteered as church security, a concealed carry permit holder (just last week in the Portland mall shooting)—who took action.

When a monster starts shooting, we can either wait until the “approved” security people show up, or someone on the scene can address it. It is unconscionable to suggest that we should wait for people in uniform (while innocent people are being murdered) because we are “uncomfortable” with the idea of a regular citizen (even if trained) being able to shoot the bad guys. This attitude is despicable.

I just wish that the brave principal who charged the shooter last Friday had been able to do it with a firearm. How many children could have been saved if there had not been an insane policy requiring everyone there to be defenseless?

Gresham proposes the a series of questions be asked of a liberal:

• Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if a police officer with a gun had been able to shoot this murderer before he killed so many children?

• Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if a trained security officer with a gun had been able to shoot this murderer before he killed so many children?

• Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if a trained volunteer with a gun had been able to shoot this murderer before he killed so many children?

• Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if a trained teacher or administrator with a gun had been able to shoot this murderer before he killed so many children?

• If you agree with the first, what would prevent you from agreeing with the last?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 19, 2012 09:17 AM | Send