No Living Person Left Behind

I haven't had time to Fisk their new 54 page treatise on "Guns Bad, Victims Good!" called "No Gun Left Behind", but I do have some comments on the website that accompanies it.

Some salient quotes:

"Armed students? Armed teachers? That is the response of the gun lobby to the horrible massacre at Virginia Tech. Let's give everyone a gun and start the crossfire. The gun lobby is pushing legislation modeled after a law in Utah that prohibits colleges and universities from barring possession or use of firearms on campus. As a result of the law, 18-year-old kids could carry handguns to class, and kids even younger than 18 could possess AK-47 assault rifles with high-capacity magazines on campus. The gun lobby also wants to arm K-12 teachers."

Okay, let's tone down the rhetoric here. As it stands currently, there is no crossfire. Teachers and students cannot defend themselves. They're DYING instead!

Yes, let's talk about Utah. How many mass shootings have taken place in a Utah school? Come on, I'm waiting... Times up!

I seriously doubt anyone at the NRA is suggesting that kids younger than 18 carry AK-47's to school. But even if they were, there was a time in this country when school kids did take their guns to school, put them in a locker, and then took them home with them after school was done. Tell me how many school shootings happened back then. I'll give you the answer, none.

I can think of a lot worse things than arming K-12 teachers. Like my kids dying because their teacher wasn't able to protect them.

Take a lesson from the Israeli's. After terrorists began targeting their schools, they armed their teachers and armed guards patrolled the perimeter. The terrorists soon learned that schools were no longer an easy target. And that is all a "Gun-Free Zone" is anyway, a target rich environment.

Sarah Brady, Paul Helmke, et, al. Pull your collective heads out of your butts and smell the coffee!

"Obviously, arming students and teachers is a bad idea.

Here are a few reasons why it would be insane to introduce guns into colleges and schools. The college age years — 18-24 — are the peak years for engaging in gun crimes, abusing drugs and alcohol, attempting suicide, and having other mental health problems. A binge-drinking, drug-using student is dangerous enough; let's not give him or her a gun."

Obvious to whom? But yet at the same time Sarah, you're perfectly fine with heavily arming the same age group to go fight, kill and die for this country. Given your logic, a large portion of the armed forces should be disarmed and given pepper spray and keys to defend themselves with against the terrorists.

Positioned right next to this argument is a disgusting cartoon which includes, Lee Harvey Oswald, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Seung-Hui Cho taking turns reciting parts of the second amendment. I will not post it on my blog on principal, but you can view it here. Any respect I may have had for these idiots evaporated on the spot. Sarah, which of the other rights should we make fun of and denigrate? How about free speech? How about freedom of the press? To peacefully assemble? How about the right against illegal search and seizure? You people disgust me!

"Do We Really Want Guns in K-12 Classrooms?

Even trained police officers, on average, hit their intended targets less than 20% of the time.

Arming teachers would likely make them the first targets in an attack, and could encourage attackers to increase their firepower or wear body armor.

More than 2,000 K-12 students are expelled each year for carrying guns to school. Do we really want armed teachers confronting them? What if a teacher shoots a student?"

Now they trot out the "Police officers are the only ones trained enough to handle a firearm safely and accurately" myth. Police officers are less likely to hit what they aim at simply because most of them only have to qualify once a year, with a limited number of rounds. The gun for them is just a part of the job and they take no interest in honing their skills further. Therefore, it is no surprise they can't hit what they aim at. I personally asked an officer in my town what kind of gun he had and all he knew was that it was a Glock (stamped on the side of the gun) and that the bullets were the kind that expanded and wouldn't pass through, hitting other people. From the small clues he awkwardly gave me, I deduced that it was a Glock in .45 ACP with hollowpoint bullets. I'm not trying to run down cops, merely demonstrating that holding them up as the paragon for weapons handling is goofy at best. I belong to a shooting range, and among the people I see there, 95% of them are very good with a handgun. The simple reason is, they practice. They practice many more times a year than most cops do.

Seriously, aren't teachers usually the first targets of an attack anyway? They're bigger and older and more able to resist than their children. This is a strawman and that's all I'm going to comment.

Well, what if a teacher shoots a student? What if a wack-job storms into the school with a 9mm and a .22lr pistol and kills 32 people? Is one better than the other? Are the victims more righteous if they can't or won't fight back? Would a teacher be better off confronting the attacker or cowering in fear beneath their desk?

As soon as I have the time and a large supply of antiacid, I'll peruse their little booklet and post the results.

Anyway, I've got some kids to feed...