The tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary happened nearly a year ago. Gun Control advocates in the past year have pushed for all kinds of legislation that would increase controls on the rights of firearms owners throughout the country. Unfortunately, not a single one of the things that they have asked for would have done anything to prevent the tragedy that occurred. In this post, we will look at the things that have been pursued, and why they wouldn’t have done anything to prevent the carnage. And then I will discuss my idea, that may not have prevented the tragedy, but would have severely limited the damage.
- Magazine Limits
Why it wouldn’t have worked:
Several states have implemented limits on the capacity of the magazines for weapons. In New York, the SAFE act passed, which was anything but safe. Massachusetts passed legislation limiting magazine capacity, and types of weapons allowed for ownership. Colorado passed legislation limiting magazine capacity.
The first thing we need to agree upon is that criminals, or those intent on criminal behavior, don’t give a Philadelphia Flying Monkey F*ck with a Twist what the laws are. (Look up the definition of criminal.) So all that limiting capacity does, is limit law abiding citizens. Criminals don’t care about magazine limits. Politicians have stated that “if it saves the life of one child, it will be worth it.” No it won’t. I don’t want to save the life of just one child. I want to save the lives of as many children as possible. A magazine limit might have saved one child. But with the amount of time that the individual who perpetrated the massacre at Sandy Hook was allowed to inflict damage, a limited magazine capacity would have had a negligible effect. Not to mention all of the owners of firearms out there who would have been “grandfathered” in. If they aren’t grandfathered in, then you are only left with the option of confiscation. In New York they are confiscating firearms as we speak. Those who said “They aren’t coming for your guns” now have a problem. They have been made liars, because in New York, California, and Massachusetts, they actually are in fact, coming to take your guns away.
- Universal Background Checks
Why it wouldn’t have worked:
The individual that shot up the elementary school wouldn’t have passed a background check. He didn’t get the weapons he used from a mythical “gun show loophole.” He didn’t purchase them from a private seller. He didn’t get them from an unethical gun shop. He shot and killed his mother, and stole them from her. No amount of background check would have prevented that. But after this incident, suddenly background checks will make it all better. Background checks have become basically meaningless since they were implemented because there is little to no enforcement. Out of thousands of fraudulently filed Form 4473s, less than 100 have been prosecuted. So all this would really do is create an even larger disparity between fraud and prosecution. While the NICS system has prevented some people from getting firearms who shouldn’t have them, it is not perfect either. Instant, isn’t always instant.
- Assault Weapons Bans
Why it wouldn’t have worked:
Some people have sworn that banning so called “Assault Weapons” would have prevented this tragedy from happening. It would have changed it, and it would have changed the dynamic of it, but it would not have been prevented. The individual who committed this crime could have, and would have used handguns, if the AR-15 wasn’t available to him. (Remember, he stole it from his mother, who he murdered. Besides, how do you define “Assault Weapons.” I wrote about this a while back here. There are other tragedies that have occurred without this type of weapon. The shooter at Virginia Tech didn’t use this kind of weapon.
So what would work? What would have prevented this, or at the very least limited the damage and destruction caused to so many lives? Well, how was it stopped? Armed individuals, namely Police Officers, intervened. They used guns to stop the damage. The problem was it took them several minutes to get there. As the adage goes, “when seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.” That’s what happened here. Every second counted. The Police arrived minutes later. You could have an armed presence at the school. A uniformed resource officer. That might help some. But if you were intent on creating as much carnage as possible, who is the first person that you shoot? I know it’s difficult to think like a criminal, since you aren’t one, but you have to consider what goes through their minds. Besides, adding a uniformed officer, adds a significant cost, and really only serves to create your first targets of such an attack.
What would really work? How about getting rid of the idiocy of “Gun Free Zones?” They obviously aren’t gun free, since criminals simply ignore the whole concept of “gun free”. The only people who are disarmed in gun free zones, are those who are most likely to be able to limit the damage, if not prevent it all together. Instead all we have are defenseless victims, who are at the mercy of the response time of police officers. Why not allow teachers to carry concealed. Granted, it is a unique environment, and they might need some specialized training. The costs would be negligible. You don’t need to add personnel, they are already there at your school. You don’t need to provide them with anything, most of them who would do this, already have the equipment they need, and would be willing to pay for their own training. When seconds count, they are only seconds away. I’m not saying “arm the teachers.” Most of them I wouldn’t trust with a slingshot, let alone a firearm. But there are those teachers out there who fit the description. They probably already have a firearm. There is a pretty good chance they already have a permit to carry concealed. Chances are there is at least one at your child’s school.
Of all of the proposed legislation, this one, that makes the most logical sense, raised the most objection from the gun control crowd. To me that proves that it isn’t actually about safety, or for the children or any of those feel good emotional pleas. It’s about control. It is about limiting a person’s right to defend themselves and others. There are a few schools who have actually pursued this. Look at the two signs below. Which one do you think carries more immediate consequences and urgency? Which one is going to get shot up like Swiss cheese and which one goes about their day, without having to worry about some idiot a**hole moron like the jackass who shot up Sandy Hook?
I would rather send my son to the school on the left. He’d be safer.