The public knows very, very little official information surrounding the Sandy Hill school shootings in Connecticut. Outside of the names and ages of the deceased, most of what we hear is just speculation and accordingly the story seems to change by the hour. However, there are some things we can comment on such as the reactions of people.

We know that those who call for gun control measures aren’t even serious about a solution. These are ‘feel good’ solutions for those who believe we must do something, that even an ineffective measure is better than doing nothing. That’s not true. An ineffective measure that infringes upon my right to protect myself and my family is worse than doing nothing.

There are various efforts underway to ban assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and enact ever stricter gun control laws across the country. These are steps designed to minimize the casualty count, not anything to address the core issue and prevent an attack from ever occurring.

The fact is this. If you are serious about preventing the use of firearms in a crime, you must not only ban the sale of any and all firearms, you must also confiscate all privately owned firearms across the country as well as securing our borders to insure none can be transported in. Are you in the anti-gun crowd also willing to secure the borders? Any measure short of this is merely symbolic. Background checks, registering ammo, trigger locks, gun safes, gun free zones, or limits on types or amounts of guns or ammo are all window dressing. Regulating the manner in which legal gun owners obtain or use their weapons is nothing more than punitive. Criminals pay no regard to the laws that affect lawful gun owners.

Unless the country is willing to undertake a civil war in which you can find enough members of law enforcement willing to go door-to-door and shoot their fellow Americans who will refuse to give up their guns willingly, gun control is futile. I suspect that most in the hard-core anti-gun crowd would not also be willing to undertake border security. After all, if you can’t ensure that ANY weapons ever enter the country and end up in the hands of criminals, what is the point?

The contention from the anti-gun crowd is that limiting accessibility will prevent otherwise lawful people from the temptation to use them in a panic or out of character situation. That is the Bob Costas argument in the case of the NFL player who recently killed his girlfriend and then himself. Would he have used some other potential weapon like a baseball bat to accomplish the same result? We’ll never know. Would he have then killed himself if he didn’t have a gun? If one’s mindset is to take your own life, driving your car into a brick wall would suffice, wouldn’t it? Detractors will say if he didn’t have easy access to a weapon in that moment of panic, he likely would have chosen a different course even just moments later. Maybe, maybe not.

Which gets to the core issue. Gun violence is a result of a mindset. There are many factors that go into that mindset. Society, culture, parental upbringing, values, morals, ethics, surroundings, etc. establish the mindset. A propensity for violence must exist even if that person hasn’t outwardly acted upon it. That’s why we can see people who don’t fit the profile suddenly snap much to the shock of their closet family and friends who will tell you they have never exhibited that type of behavior before.

Banning guns certainly isn’t about safety and saving the lives of innocent children. If true, we would have no cars for fear of drunks getting behind the wheel. Why not prohibition instead? Why allow cigarette production? In fact, wouldn’t banning schools solve the problem? Home schooling for all. Problem solved! If it’s really the children we’re trying to protect, why not ban skateboards and trampolines and any other device you can think of not necessary to life that could potentially cause harm?

Why do we allow people to rebuild their homes in flood prone areas? In tornado alley? Why isn’t little league football banned yet because of the concussion problems? How far should we go in protecting ourselves from ourselves? Sound ridiculous? Should we ban the name Sandy since it’s common with the school shootings and the hurricane this year? Now that’s ridiculous. But so are advertised gun-free zones which only serve to comfort the criminal by providing the satisfaction that they will not face any resistance in conducting their criminal act in places like schools and malls and movie theaters and other places of large gatherings of defenseless people.

Is there a one size fits all solution for preventing violence? Of course not, we’re imperfect humans. By focusing on the symptoms rather than the cause, we’ll never successfully minimize violence to everyone’s satisfaction. Wouldn’t it seem logical that the place to start is the family unit? Where children have their morals and values instilled upon them by their parents? Which leads to the larger issue of the breakdown in society of family values. And the sanctity of marriage. And not relying upon the public school system to raise our children. Yes, the types of arguments that drive you progressives out there nuts. It’s taken a village to get us to this point. It will take just two people at a time to undo it. The parents.


7 thoughts on “Should we ban schools to prevent another Sandy Hill? Home schooling for all?

  1. The real issues will be given lip service at best. The easy target of guns will be what politicians and the media want to talk about. Banning shools would do more good than what will eventially come out of this tragedy. Maybe a better option would be to ban having children. Then in time there would be no one to kill.

  2. Of course, I ask the question of banning schools rhetorically because it illustrates how much of the focus in the aftermath will be on solutions with no bearing on the cause. It’s yet another case of individualism vs. collectivism. It won’t stop with a gun grab either as all private property is in the sights of the statists.

  3. “The public knows very, very little official information surrounding the Sandy Hill school shootings…”

    The sad fact is that the public still knows very, very little real information about anything even with the explosion of alternative explanations of what is the real truth on the internet to fight misinformation and disinformation from the MSM. Hell, the vast majority of public officials tasked with gathering all that ‘official’ information know very, very little about anything. Take crime statistics for instance. lol How do you personally know if crime rates are going up or down? What real crimes are being covered up by not reporting, what non-crimes are being fabricated to indict specific or randomly chosen individuals for any reason, or can reporting criteria be tweaked from time to time to falsely show us that they need more and more police to fight non-existant increases in crime, or to cover up real increases to lull us into a sense of security that they’re doing their jobs? And, more importantly, the real question is why do we trust official information or impressions they give us for some things, but not for others? How can you be sure there is true animosity and dislike for each other between Netanyahu and Obama, or is that what they want us all to think while they’re both reading from the same script? Is it only when it supports our personal view on the way we think things really are and what we ‘need’ to get it to where we thing it ought to be, but not when it doesn’t?

    “If one’s mindset is to take your own life, driving your car into a brick wall would suffice, wouldn’t it?”

    Good question. How many of the accidents on our highways each year would you imagine are exactly that? One or two, a thousand or so, even more? And how about when those people are under the influence? It doesn’t really matter, does it? It’s simply logged as another alcohol related incident to bump up the numbers on those official government records to justify the excuse for imposing more statuatory restrictions, setting up roadblocks, and implementing more people behavior control programs. And when they set up those roadblocks, what is the percentage of arrests per number of motorists stopped by the pre-crime, pre-accident division? Is it more efficient use of the limited resources of the public servants’ time to stop hundreds of people going about their business to catch a few on the auspices of ‘saving lives’ and pulling them off duties chasing down real violent criminals which may theoretically save even more lives? That doesn’t really matter either, does it? The system just rolls on and on giving you information to support your view of the way things are and what they need to get them to the way you think things ought to be. Or is it really the way they think things ought to be that they have to employ some means to get you to agree with? Barney Fife is now out there with a fully loaded gun, since Andy has died and there’s a new sheriff in town. Get back in line, or you will be tased.

    IMHO, the only way to look at this incident is how does this fit in to the bigger plan of the nanny state mentality and how our schools are being used to implement it. They took our kids and dumped them into mass public education to fill their heads with ideas of the joys of diversity while indoctrinating all original thoughts out of their heads with their standardized learning objectives and declaring that celebrating diversity means they cannot ever speak their mind if it were to offend another to help drive the future generations towards accepting obedience to control of authorities over their actions. They’re giving us an illusion of choice just like with presidential elections with two parties with charter schools under the guise of it being ‘school choice’, yet they still have to follow all centrally mandated ‘requirements’ in the collective assimilation program. What kind of real choice is that? Who makes up those requirements beyond the basic minimums for the three R’s or imposes requirements for all those other touchy-feely subjects they think everyone ought to know? Why does little Johnny have to learn quadratic equations to get his gold star and a shot of getting a diploma to say he was a good boy and good to go in the working world where he wants to be a ballet dancer? Can’t simple basics of addition and multiplication tables be enough for all with the rest given to those aspiring for vocations where the knowledge is needed? When was the last time you used a quadratic equation in your vocation or while pursuing your happiness?

    And why are kids cattle prodded through the school system like a herd being run through the chute into the slaughterhouse when some kids could obviously fulfill current system requirements for high school in 2 or 3 years and others require 4 to 6 to learn all the minimal concepts they want to teach you?

    Is it any wonder kids appear to be lashing out shooting up schools with such animosity and hatred in alleged increasing frequency according to the official statistics? These ‘isolated’ incidents have the look and feel of a growing backlash against ever increasing authority feeding a brewing prisoner revolt.

    And that animosity and hatred is not just targeted against public officials and ‘the system’, it’s also against parents who have sold them into slavery. What are we teaching them when we dutifully fill out our tax forms to give the government information they ask which is much more than they are entitled to have under our Constitutional rights to privacy that they then use to figure out the next thing they want to steal from us? And it’s all because we asked them to do it to give us deductions, exemptions, and other breaks. Look at me! I gave $100 to charity this year, so give me back $14 off my taxes!!! So next year they change the codes like they always do to get that $14 back and more from somewhere else to give to who they want to give it to to keep them in power. Why do all levels of government put together add up to much, much more than 10% of our income and why do they have matching funds programs where the federal government matches funds for state run programs when all the money still comes from our pocket? They fight constantly over the Bush (income) tax cuts and have us all preoccupied with that and the fictional fiscal cliff designed specifically for them to justify raising taxes, while our local taxes and their hidden taxes all increased by more than what our Bush tax cut income tax savings were to pay for the decreases in matching funds to state and local programs. We’re letting them continue this crap and leaving it for our kids to figure out with the dismal critical thinking skills they’re teaching them in the schools that we all pay for. What are we… stupid? Maybe that should be a mandatory school requirement, teaching them how much government lies and the programs they create to hide how much they’re stealing from us and from where?

    Or is it just the ‘legal’ drugs they’re experimenting with to force them to assimilate into the borg collective and run around singing the Happy Happy Joy Joy song all day which are having unintended side effects of putting murder and mayhem into their hearts? Or are those side effects really all that unintended? Hmmmmmmmm….

    Oops, the alarm clock just rang. This slave has to be off to work to help pay for a little more hope and change.

  4. lol, yea, a bit wordy to simply say it’s all just an illusion. 😉 Your last few sentences say it all about the eternal struggle between the village and the family.

    But I’m perplexed over the persistent conservative cries for things like ‘preserving traditional marriage’. The biggest point is that we tend to be our own worst enemies because we continue to empower them by asking them to fix what they broke in the first place only to have them propose making more of them to rule us more thoroughly. Like the whole traditional marriage fight, why does anyone care to get the state involved? It’s only the government recognizing contracts, deeming themselves to be the grand arbiteurs of any resultant disputes, and setting taxing policies on us. They broke it in the first place, and we expect them to fix it? Why do more and more of us depend on lawyers to navigate the myriad of laws that lawyers themselves made to drum up more business for themselves to grow their power over us like going to the state for that marriage license in the first place? You’re only submitting to their illusion of power. Why don’t we worry more about common law instead of their continuously changing statutes of an ever growing secular government which are affected to increase their control and appease us momentarily by making it look like they’re doing something for our benefit. Instead shouldn’t we all strive to spend more than 20 minutes a month trying to instill traditional values in our own children rather than reaching for a Bud and losing ourselves in watching two teams play a game during our free time who mean absolutely nothing in our personal lives as to who wins or loses?

    You’re saying it took that village to get us here, don’t rely on them, yet you interjected a line about the ‘sanctity of marriage’. How many witnesses do you need other than yourself, your spouse, and your God to validate that contract of devotion, love, and undying commitment? If we can’t trust our spouse, who out there in the village can we trust? Are you simultaneously asking them to stop making laws that impose others’ values on you, yet make laws to preserve your values and force others to conform. What would that solve? It’s the same with abortion. Who should care if they who would wish you to conform to their values go about killing off their progeny, as long as you continue to teach your kids and those within your sphere of influence who share like values that it’s abominable?

    The only real way to fight a cancer is to stop feeding it.

  5. You’re saying it took that village to get us here

    I’m not saying it, I was just stealing Hillary Clinton’s soundbite because she believes it. That was my poorly worded attempt to highlight the arguments of the left. You and I are in complete agreement that the government should have absolutely no role in marriage.

    IMO, we will solve none of the important issues facing this country without it starting at the family unit. The pessimist in me says we are too far gone already, however, those of us who see the problem are, I believe, indebted to do what we can regardless of the long odds against it.

  6. Damn, perhaps it is I with the poor wording. I wasn’t arguing against you and agree with everything you wrote so far. I should have started with saying thanks for another great post! I was just trying to add a few points to try to get closer to that root cause that even I’m not sure I know exactly what it is.

    But on this last comment I have to argue against you. You’re not indebted to do anything, but God bless you for trying! 🙂

Comments are now closed.