If we really wanted to save children

Protection

If we really wanted to save the children.

I briefly touched on this a short time back but I wanted to go a bit more in depth. Gun control advocates keep talking about “common sense” rules and regulations, suggesting that if you are not for gun control you have none. They say that we must have these rules if we want to save the children. Again suggesting that if we are not for gun control we don’t care about children. So let’s take a common sense look at this topic.

As multiple victim shootings and specifically school shootings have occurred our response has been “gun free zones”. We have limited magazine capacity, and forced registration of assault weapons. All to no effect. Each time that some psycho has decided to go on a rampage he has to some degree accomplished his objective. None of these measures have gotten the desired results, if saving lives is actually the goal.

Why not? Well common sense says that murdering people is already illegal so a sign telling a criminal not to do something is not a logical deterrent. Required registration again only effects people that are willing to follow the law. Magazine capacity limits? Remember we are looking for common sense practical things that everyone can see would work. So limiting how fast the bad guy can shoot should work right? Well here is the sad fact. In Newtown, one of the worst school shootings the rate of fire was an average of 24 rounds per minute. Most people can actually shoot and reload a revolver at that rate. The rate at all of these multiple victim shootings is such that reloading is not an issue. Let’s face it, if I walk into a classroom of 6 year olds and lock the door behind me I can kill every child in that class, before police arrive, and I can do it with a hammer. Gun control is not about saving children. It is about gun control.

So what is a “common sense” solution? Well let’s look at another situation that arose where we did put measures in place that up until now have worked. On 9/11 terrorist using box cutters took over airlines and used them to kill over 3000 people. What did we do in that case? We immediately increased the number of air marshals on board flights and yes we profiled and added those marshals to flights that were more likely to be targeted. So more guys with guns. Next we beefed up screening. Try to keep the bad guys off the planes. Then we hardened the cockpit doors so if they got past the screen and there were no marshals on board they still could not easily get to the pilots. Finally we developed a program to arm the pilots. Again the last and most sure defense was more guys with guns. These were the “common sense” things we did to protect our citizens and our children from people with no regard for their lives. Guess what? It has worked.

Now, since we are using common sense, and we have a model that works, how do we apply it to our children? Pretty simple really. First Armed security. It can be private, police, open, or under cover, but like anyone you want to protect you give them security. Has Obama, one of the most anti-gun presidents in history, got more armed security or less? Next beef up screening. No you don’t have to have the TSA at the door or even any kind of detection but only allow entrance through monitored doors. Then harden classroom doors. It is not that hard to make sure that a lock down really would make it hard for a bad guy to get into individual classes. Finally develop programs so that any teacher that wanted to could carry a concealed weapon. Not all of them will, but not knowing if they are or are not will actually act as a deterrent.

If you want to push gun control then that is your right. However call it what it is. Don’t pretend you are doing it to save children. If you want to save children then use a proven model that has already worked. That is common sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *