(note: I actually planned to write on this weeks ago, but I rarely had time to focus on blogging)
One month ago today, the school year was about to end, and it was time to celebrate.
However, at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, someone ensured that there'll be nothing to celebrate for a long time. A man went into the school and murdered 19 students and 2 students.
This echoed another incident from a decade ago in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.
--------
In an emergency, you don't have much time to think. You have to act under severe duress. It's unrealistic to expect that no mistakes will be made in attempting to protect the children in such situations. It can be easy to forget to lock a door you aren't even sure is unlocked. That is understandable and forgivable.
But the police were too slow to act. They stood around the campus and were rougher on the understandably impatient parents than they were on the shooter. The police claimed that they didn't want to put themselves in danger. But we pay them to put themselves in danger in these circumstances. Firefighters and lifeguards are known to risk death to save someone else's life. But much of police training is focused more on protecting themselves than the civilians.
And my guess is some of the cops wanted to just get in there and stop the shooter but didn't because they had to obey the commander. This in itself will traumatize those cops for life.
The commander is supposed to be brave and encourage the subordinate officers to be brave against the shooter. That's what we pay them to do.
------
And this incident sparked additional demands for more gun control.
Because the shooter was 18 years old, anti-gun activists want laws to limit gun sales to those over 21. I think that's the wrong approach. 18-year-olds are old enough to join the military and carry big guns. If that's the case, then 18-year-olds without a criminal record should be allowed to buy a gun.
I believe in a consistent age of adulthood. If 18 is the age of adulthood, then an 18-year-old should be able to vote, join the military, buy a gun, smoke, buy beer, have sex with adults, and do other things without getting their parents' permission.
(* note: I discourage people from drinking alcohol or smoking, but if it's legal for adults and 18-year old are adults, then they should be allowed to do it)
I also think we should allow school staff to be armed, and not just security. I don't think it should be required because some staff might be squeamish around guns. But the ones who want to be armed should be allowed to get trained and then be allowed to be armed on campus.
Gunphobes say "why don't we just ban guns?" Guns are already invented and it's too late to stop now. And throwing an eraser at a killer isn't going to work. Someone needs to be there to shoot that guy. Especially since it'll take forever for the police to come, and even then, they may not always be much help.
It's best for the shooter to wonder "will the school employee shoot back?" instead of thinking "school employees ain't going to do s**t, and the police is not here yet".
School shooters LOVE gunphobes because gunphobes make schools defenseless against people with guns. School shooters want to inflict maximum damage. But if an office clerk, teacher, librarian, custodian, or cafeteria worker shoots back, then the damage is minimized.
-------
There's also talk of mental illness. Yes, schools need more mental health professionals. The ones already employed are overwhelmed with the # of students assigned to them.
But we also have to be realistic that mental health professionals can only do so much. Some people don't want to be helped.
And in school shootings, this isn't someone who just snapped. These attacks are planned.
Or as Mark Follman wrote
Extensive case history shows that mass shooters don’t just suddenly break — they decide.
Follman also mentioned this
Blaming mental illness for mass shootings inflicts a damaging stigma on the millions of people who suffer from clinical afflictions, the vast majority of whom are not violent.
And that's the problem with ideas like "ban mentally ill from getting guns", this further stigmatizes people who are suffering through no fault of their own.
Some say "get rid of the 2nd Amendment".
I say we rewrite it like this
Self-defense being a basic human right, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed without due process.
If someone is deemed "too dangerous" to have a gun, then that should be PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt.
But too many on the Left talk a good game about "criminal justice reform", but their anti-gun squeamishness causes them to put all sense of due process on the side, and causes them to view all those who want a gun to be "guilty until proven innocent".
I support the recent Supreme Court decision against New York's law that require applicants for concealed weapon permit to "prove" they have a special need to be armed in public.
(note: Hawaii has a similar law)
Excuse me, prove they have a "special need"?
How about "BECAUSE I EXIST AND I WANT TO CONTINUE TO EXIST"?
That should be good enough for a law-abiding citizen to be armed in public.
If there's anything that needs to be proven, it should be the police who need proof that a person is too dangerous to be armed in public.
And a person who is too dangerous to be armed in public is most likely a person who is too dangerous to be in public.
A dangerous person without a gun can still stab you, knock you out, or put you in a chokehold.
A person who is proven to have committed an unprovoked act of violence is most likely too dangerous to be in public.
But in too many liberal cities, repeat offenders are released from jail in the name of "compassion".
Real compassion ALLOWS people a means to defend themselves.
There's NOTHING compassionate about releasing proven repeat offenders from custody while keeping their victims defenseless.
Those who don't know me will assume that I'm a "right-winger" even though I'm
- pro-choice (not happy with today's Supreme Court decision)
- pro-immigration (I'm more pro-open-borders than most Democrats)
- pro-safety net
- pro-legalization of marijuana, gambling, and consensual sex among ADULTS (again, more liberal than most Democrats)
- for all workers to be offered union membership upon hire
- anti-imperialism (make Hawaii independent again)
- for stricter accountability standards for police officers
- still taking the coronavirus crisis seriously (still wearing my surgical mask in public)
But I don't understand what is so "right-wing" about the right to defend oneself by all means necessary!
And what is so "right-wing" about "innocent until proven guilty"?
