(no subject)
Another anti-gun Letter to the Editor, this one to a Milwaukee paper last Friday:
My quotes and Phil's are italicized.
The following editorial appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on
Friday, Oct. 13:
---
How do you stop gun toters determined to shoot up a school? That problem defies easy answers. Accordingly, none came forth at a conference President Bush convened in suburban Washington, D.C., last week in response to a spate of deadly school shootings, including the fatal shooting of a principal in rural Wisconsin.
Sadly, the conference avoided a promising line of inquiry. A common ingredient of the incidents was the use of guns. The natural question: Can the nation do a better job of keeping firearms out of the hands of people who use the weapons to terrorize schools? That question went unexplored. (You can pen up your sheep all you want, but there will always be those that fall victim to the odd wolf. The only logical solution is to bring in a wolfhound)
The day before the conference, a 13-year-old student brought an AK-47 clone to a middle school in Joplin, Mo., and fired it - without hitting anyone, thank goodness. An administrator talked him into leaving the building, and police arrested the boy. The incident was a reminder of Bush's lax stand on gun control. Two years ago, he let
expire a ban on military-style, semiautomatic weapons, such as the AK-47. (Right, because bullets from a look-alike are deadlier than bullets from anything else; don't confuse the issue)
Yes, these incidents are complex, and guns are not the only factor. Alienation is a common thread among accused and would-be shooters from the ranks of students. They feel taunted or bullied by the "in" crowd. Fifteen-year-old Eric Hainstock, charged in the shooting death of Weston Schools Principal John Klang in Cazenovia, seemed to fit that pattern. He said he was upset because a group of students was teasing him. (Bullying has been a problem since Cain and Abel; you're not solving anything by "banning" one of the most extreme tools. Give responsible adults--who are in a better position than you to see such problems developing--the means to halt such escalations before they go completely to hell)
Clearly, as conferees noted, early detection of ticking time bombs is key. Better yet, can schools take steps to ease tensions among cliques so that bombs won't start ticking? One possible answer is uniforms. Schools that have adopted them report reduction in such tensions - a fact worth pondering. And schools must examine whether their anti-bullying policies need to be upgraded. (What "anti-bullying policies?" Now that someone's sniffing around you suddenly have "anti-bullying policies?")
Two recent shooting incidents - in Bailey, Colo., and Lancaster, Pa. - departed from the norm in that they involved men who invaded schools with the apparent intent of molesting female students. (No, it was only a matter of time before someone figured out that there were entire populations of young girls ripe for victimization) One recommendation - that all schools draw up an emergency plan in the event violence breaks out and that they practice the plan - is worth adopting. (Most schools have that already: it's called locking your goddamn doors and not letting anyone in--most interior doors are made from that ridiculously heavy fire-resistant material anyway. Should the gunman try to shoot his way in, stand next to the door and hit him with something as he comes through! Having a shitload of screaming children running around is providing what we call a "target-rich environment!")
But the one-day conference was too reticent about guns. A Wisconsin lawmaker has contributed to that topic, but not in a helpful way. State Rep. Frank Lasee, a Green Bay Republican, wants to arm teachers and principals on the theory that they could pull out their trusty weapons to stop armed assailants. (So...your beef with that is?)
While that outcome is possible, guns in schools are likely to do more harm than good. For one, students could steal the weapons. (If the teacher is a complete bonehead, then yes, it's possible. But teachers would be aware of that possibility, not like many lax parents from whom most shooters get their weapons!) For another, they might be too handy when heated disputes erupt. (Bullshit. Most yeachers I know wouldn't want to carry one anyway, much less use one. And show me the student who's willing to argue to that point with a teacher he knows is packing) Also, in the event of an assault, a teacher could be killed while reaching for a gun. [But an unarmed teacher being executed is somehow more 'noble' or appropriate. -PVC]
Remember, Columbine High School had an armed guard on the premises, and he was not able to stop the massacre. (One guy to stop two of them...right) Another object lesson comes from Tyler, Texas, where last year a bystander, licensed to carry a cocealed weapon, pulled out his handgun to stop a shooting spree outside the courthouse. The assailant, armed with an AK-47, shot the bystander to death. [Criminal had a bullet proof vest on and that kept the gun owner from stopping him. - PVC]
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has faulted Bush for excluding the topic of guns from the conference. White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore fired back in an e-mail message to the Los Angeles Times: "President Bush believes we should target criminals who
break our laws - not law-abiding citizens who follow the law."
Trouble is, the government already deals about as effectively as it can with shooters. Unfortunately, this is only after they break the law and shoot up a school. (So...stop them in their tracks BEFORE they kill a load of students!) Law enforcement officers arrest them if they haven't already killed themselves. That's not where the weakness in the system is. The weakness is in heading off such shootings. Relaxing gun laws does not shore up that weakness. (Nor does it add to it)
So there you have my two cents. Take it for what you will; it's my opinion, it may not agree with yours, but whatever you do, don't call me close-minded or ignorant. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a lack of respect for opinions, regardless of who holds them.
My quotes and Phil's are italicized.
The following editorial appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on
Friday, Oct. 13:
---
How do you stop gun toters determined to shoot up a school? That problem defies easy answers. Accordingly, none came forth at a conference President Bush convened in suburban Washington, D.C., last week in response to a spate of deadly school shootings, including the fatal shooting of a principal in rural Wisconsin.
Sadly, the conference avoided a promising line of inquiry. A common ingredient of the incidents was the use of guns. The natural question: Can the nation do a better job of keeping firearms out of the hands of people who use the weapons to terrorize schools? That question went unexplored. (You can pen up your sheep all you want, but there will always be those that fall victim to the odd wolf. The only logical solution is to bring in a wolfhound)
The day before the conference, a 13-year-old student brought an AK-47 clone to a middle school in Joplin, Mo., and fired it - without hitting anyone, thank goodness. An administrator talked him into leaving the building, and police arrested the boy. The incident was a reminder of Bush's lax stand on gun control. Two years ago, he let
expire a ban on military-style, semiautomatic weapons, such as the AK-47. (Right, because bullets from a look-alike are deadlier than bullets from anything else; don't confuse the issue)
Yes, these incidents are complex, and guns are not the only factor. Alienation is a common thread among accused and would-be shooters from the ranks of students. They feel taunted or bullied by the "in" crowd. Fifteen-year-old Eric Hainstock, charged in the shooting death of Weston Schools Principal John Klang in Cazenovia, seemed to fit that pattern. He said he was upset because a group of students was teasing him. (Bullying has been a problem since Cain and Abel; you're not solving anything by "banning" one of the most extreme tools. Give responsible adults--who are in a better position than you to see such problems developing--the means to halt such escalations before they go completely to hell)
Clearly, as conferees noted, early detection of ticking time bombs is key. Better yet, can schools take steps to ease tensions among cliques so that bombs won't start ticking? One possible answer is uniforms. Schools that have adopted them report reduction in such tensions - a fact worth pondering. And schools must examine whether their anti-bullying policies need to be upgraded. (What "anti-bullying policies?" Now that someone's sniffing around you suddenly have "anti-bullying policies?")
Two recent shooting incidents - in Bailey, Colo., and Lancaster, Pa. - departed from the norm in that they involved men who invaded schools with the apparent intent of molesting female students. (No, it was only a matter of time before someone figured out that there were entire populations of young girls ripe for victimization) One recommendation - that all schools draw up an emergency plan in the event violence breaks out and that they practice the plan - is worth adopting. (Most schools have that already: it's called locking your goddamn doors and not letting anyone in--most interior doors are made from that ridiculously heavy fire-resistant material anyway. Should the gunman try to shoot his way in, stand next to the door and hit him with something as he comes through! Having a shitload of screaming children running around is providing what we call a "target-rich environment!")
But the one-day conference was too reticent about guns. A Wisconsin lawmaker has contributed to that topic, but not in a helpful way. State Rep. Frank Lasee, a Green Bay Republican, wants to arm teachers and principals on the theory that they could pull out their trusty weapons to stop armed assailants. (So...your beef with that is?)
While that outcome is possible, guns in schools are likely to do more harm than good. For one, students could steal the weapons. (If the teacher is a complete bonehead, then yes, it's possible. But teachers would be aware of that possibility, not like many lax parents from whom most shooters get their weapons!) For another, they might be too handy when heated disputes erupt. (Bullshit. Most yeachers I know wouldn't want to carry one anyway, much less use one. And show me the student who's willing to argue to that point with a teacher he knows is packing) Also, in the event of an assault, a teacher could be killed while reaching for a gun. [But an unarmed teacher being executed is somehow more 'noble' or appropriate. -PVC]
Remember, Columbine High School had an armed guard on the premises, and he was not able to stop the massacre. (One guy to stop two of them...right) Another object lesson comes from Tyler, Texas, where last year a bystander, licensed to carry a cocealed weapon, pulled out his handgun to stop a shooting spree outside the courthouse. The assailant, armed with an AK-47, shot the bystander to death. [Criminal had a bullet proof vest on and that kept the gun owner from stopping him. - PVC]
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has faulted Bush for excluding the topic of guns from the conference. White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore fired back in an e-mail message to the Los Angeles Times: "President Bush believes we should target criminals who
break our laws - not law-abiding citizens who follow the law."
Trouble is, the government already deals about as effectively as it can with shooters. Unfortunately, this is only after they break the law and shoot up a school. (So...stop them in their tracks BEFORE they kill a load of students!) Law enforcement officers arrest them if they haven't already killed themselves. That's not where the weakness in the system is. The weakness is in heading off such shootings. Relaxing gun laws does not shore up that weakness. (Nor does it add to it)
So there you have my two cents. Take it for what you will; it's my opinion, it may not agree with yours, but whatever you do, don't call me close-minded or ignorant. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a lack of respect for opinions, regardless of who holds them.