The obvious way to prevent school mass murders, which liberals automatically reject

At Powerline there are excerpts from a long article by novelist and gun expert Larry Correia in which he makes a strong case for what we’ve also advocated here: the best and easiest way to protect schools from mass shooters is for some of the administrators and teachers to be armed. It’s so simple (and so inexpensive, compared to having a police officer stationed full-time in every school in the land). Yet liberals treat this obvious and sensible idea as though it were some absurdity dreamed up by nutcases. Here, for example, is Charles Blow of the New York Times writing on December 14, the day of the Newtown massacre:

… Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, wasted no time trying to pin Friday’s shooting on gun control advocates. ThinkProgress quoted a statement of his that read, in part: “Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to ensure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones.”

Outrageous.

Blow doesn’t feel he has to show why Pratt’s statement is outrageous. Its outrageousness is simply self-evident to every liberal. “We liberals are supposed to carry guns? What’s next—that we reinstitute the patriarchy and bring back racial segregation?” By their instant and non-reasoning rejection of the idea of arming school staff liberals show their true colors: they loathe all force—except in the hands of the bureaucratic or tyrannical liberal state.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 22, 2012 09:52 AM | Send