On The Uvalde School Shooting

Yesterday’s murder of children and teachers at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde doesn’t require an ethics verdict. The shooter was a monster, by any rational definition. The reactions and public statements provoked by the tragedy do require ethics verdicts, and they are largely the same. There was an immediate rush to embrace appeals to emotion, excusable with regular citizens, irresponsible for public officials, celebrities, and anyone who has enhanced influence in society.

Particularly revolting was how much was assumed or declared before the facts were known…and there still isn’t enough known, which shouldn’t be surprising since less than 24 hours passed. There are some things we can assume, however. We can assume that there will be another media-fueled freakout more or less exactly like the reaction to the Parkland shooting, but even more extreme because Democrats are desperate to find a distraction from the markers of their incompetence and failures before a reckoning can occur in November. We can assume—indeed we have already seen—that the exact same cliches, vague nostrums and deceitful statistics will reappear and be repeated, and from the same agents. I assume Don Lemon will be weeping soon on CNN, if he hasn’t already.

Primarily, I assume that the Barn Door Fallacy will take over, like it did after the Oklahoma City bombing, 9-11-01, and the George Floyd fiasco. The public, law makers, demagogues, pundits and news media will clamor for and maybe cause to come to pass draconian measures that will make life and society in the USA less free, less healthy, less conducive to human interaction, more expensive, more inconvenient, and more generally rotten, on the theory that a random catastrophe authored by a small number of human aberrations can be retroactively prevented. Barack Obama’s fatuous “if it saves one human life” nonsense will again make sense. The hope is that this tragedy creates an opportunity to eliminate obstacles to other Democratic policies. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) said the quiet part out loud: “Abolish the filibuster and pass gun safety legislation now.”

If I permitted myself to respond to this near-certainty in kind, I would write something like the audacious conservative assassin Ace of Spades posted this morning…

…here we go again. Another firearm became self-aware and went on a shooting rampage that has left, as of this morning, 21 people dead and the Left absolutely wetting themselves with glee at the prospect of dancing on the still warm bodies as a means of distracting the citizenry from the abject disaster of the past 16 months of the waking nightmare that is life under the President Sponge-Brain Shits-Pants junta.

Check that; firearms, along with knives, automobiles, trucks, explosives and airliners can only become self-aware when a non-white and/or non Judeo-Christian is holding it, or otherwise seen to be controlling it in a manner that the media cannot effectively airbrush. Otherwise, minus the seeming telekinesis and voodoo, the NRA, toxic-masculinity, TrumpPutin, whiteness, Judeo-Christianity, heterosexuals, conservatives, the pro-life movement, along with every other thing that is not at the barest of bare minimums even slightly Leftist-adjacent are always to blame.

Like clockwork, the calls for the abolition of the second amendment have come from the usual quarters. The difference is that this time, we are living in a nation where those in power have absolutely zero compunction to act unilaterally and unconstitutionally…

I think he’s basically correct, but those can’t be the observations this morning on an ethics site. For now, these are:

  • Apparently, school shootings make you stupid. Some of the most intelligent, informed and generally rational of my friends posted these exact words on social media: “This has to stop!”… “GUN CONTROL”…”I want to live in a country that loves its children more than its guns”…”Now Uvalde, Texas. How many more before we DO SOMETHING?”

Yes, by all means, let’s do SOMETHING, just to be able to say we did something..like, say, taking away the rights of law abiding citizens to pretend to prevent criminals and maniacs from ignoring whatever new restrictions are put in place. Do what? Pre-crime? Confiscation? Repealing the Second Amendment? I give my normally astute friend credit for not using “sensible (or common sense) gun control” rather than just “GUN CONTROL,” but plenty of others are. That’s the recycled code for “we really don’t have any plan that will stop shootings like this, but we want to make it sound like there is one besides banning guns.”

  • Biden’s address was simply a stump speech when a bipartisan statement of compassion and healing was required in the mold of President Reagan’s address after the Challenger disaster. It was a dumb stump speech at that. It sounded like a recycled speech from the Sandy Hook anti-gun campaign; maybe it was. “Gun lobby” “assault weapons,” “commonsense gun law”, yada yada, plus Bible verses from a President now supporting the abortion of viable fetuses, “We have to act” (Translation: “Do something”), “We can do so much more. We have to do more” ((Translation: “Do something”). Shameless and shameful. But typical and predictable.

It’s unethical for leaders to pretend they have a practical solutions when they don’t.

  • Attention must be paid to Joe’s evocation of this indestructible anti-gun oldie but goodie: “What in God’s name do you need an assault weapon for except to kill someone? Deer aren’t running through the forest with Kevlar vests on, for God’s sake. It’s just sick.” The government doesn’t and can’t have the power to tell me what I “need” to protect my family, home, or self, particularly when it is inclined to allow some groups with Progressive Seal of Approval grievances hold “mostly peaceful protests” while law enforcement is ordered to stand down.

I was going to list the most revolting statements by various officials sparked by the shooting, but I waited too long, and now there are so many I can’t do it. Here is a representative sample, however:

  • Special infamy is due GOP Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona, who launched the rumor via Twitter that the shooter was a “transsexual leftist illegal alien.” I saw this turn up last night several times. He should be disiciplined by the party. (He won’t be.)
  • Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona tweeted at Ted Cruz: “Fuck you …you care about a fetus but you will let our children get slaughtered. Just get your ass to Cancun. You are useless.”
  • Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Cal) tweeted, “My little boy just asked “did the bad guy from the grocery store come back? Is he going to come to our house?”
  • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): “There is no such thing as being ‘pro-life’ while supporting laws that let children be shot in their schools, elders in grocery stores, worshippers in their houses of faith, survivors by abusers, or anyone in a crowded place.”
  • California Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom: “We need nationwide, comprehensive, commonsense gun safety NOW.”

Hey! What a great idea!

72 thoughts on “On The Uvalde School Shooting

  1. Pre-crime? Confiscation? Repealing the Second Amendment?

    Probably all of the above, and a lot of your friends would probably add “today would be great.”

  2. Politicians everywhere said for the 100 millionth time:

    We have to act.

    It seems to me that they do little else. Act like they care about anything other than making political hay. Act like passing laws will prevent crazy people from obtaining firearms and killing others. Act like some group somewhere is responsible for the actions of others with whom their only connection is owning firearms. Act like the guns, in the words of Ace, became “self-aware” and started shooting up the place. Act like the Second Amendment doesn’t say what it does. Act like the Congress can somehow legislate the Second Amendment away. Act like law-abiding Americans have blood on their hands because they don’t agree with the Left-liberal gun controllers.

    Acting is all these people do, with a pre-ordained outcome and nothing to show for it but theatrical anger and crocodile tears.

    One of these days, as Ace avers, they will do something unconstitutional that creates a response that we can’t undo.

    Keep acting, idiots.

    President Biden said:

    What in God’s name do you need an assault weapon for except to kill someone? Deer aren’t running through the forest with Kevlar vests on, for God’s sake. It’s just sick.

    Well, where to begin? First of all, the rifles used to kill deer are far more powerful than an AR-15, which is illegal in most jurisdiction to hunt class 2 game and above (deer, etc.). Kevlar vests would no more stop a .30 caliber or above rifle projectile than a jean vest, so the idiom is profoundly stupid even if you allow that civilians actually own “assault weapons.” Second, a Kevlar vest will not stop an AR-15 round inside about 300 yards but possibly will beyond that depending on the round type, and very few deer are taken at 300+ yards with any firearm. Third, the Second Amendment says nothing whatever about hunting either by text or implication. This isn’t an argument, it’s a demonstration of pure stupidity intended to give equally stupid people something to repeat that sounds clever.

    For both sides, when it comes to gun control, it’s wash, rinse, repeat every time guns are used to kill multiple people that aren’t inner city minorities or that implicate their ideology.

      • It is true, of course, that the 2nd Amendent makes it more difficult for the state to keep us safe from the street thug and the gangbanger.

        Of course, what we should all remember is that the 2nd Amendment is not alone in this. Other constitutional provisions place limits on the state to keep us safe from the street thug and the gangbanger.

        Consider the 4th Amendment. It restricts the ability of the police to find evidence of criminal wrongdoing. This means the street thug and the gangbanger may get away with their crimes, which enables murder.

        Not only that, the 4th Amendment is unique to the United States of America. Surely the police in Paris, Lagos, or Singapore do not worry about the 4th Amendment, probable cause, or the exclusionary rule. They just look for evidence. Why not follow the example of other countries?

        Or what about the 5th or 6th Amendments? How many more street thugs and gangbangers could we catch if we could make them testify against themselves?

        Or why even bother with trials? Why not trust the police to judge who is and is not guilty?

        How much more difficult would it be to commit murder- let alone get away with murder- if we let the police judge whether or not a street thug or gangbanger is guilty?

        Or what about the 14th amendment? What if there were certain racial demographics in the U.S. that commit murder at a significantly higher rate than the general population? Why should not the police focus on those demographics? Why should not lawmakers place extra restrictions on the liberties of people in those crime-prone demographics?

        Would it not be worth it if it prevented one murder?

        Why do we need civil rights at all, given how they tie the hands of the state?

        • Don’t try making sense, Michael. The anti-firearm crowd isn’t interested in controlling their constituancy..

        • Michael said:

          Of course, what we should all remember is that the 2nd Amendment is not alone in this. Other constitutional provisions place limits on the state to keep us safe from the street thug and the gangbanger.

          True, but doesn’t it also make it easier for us to keep ourselves safe from same?

          But your larger point is well taken.

  3. I’ve been reading the same chatter from the left forever. The battle cry of “common sense gun laws” never changes. I’m relatively reasonable, so if even one of them proposed something resembling common sense, I’d be willing to listen.

    So far, here’s what passes as common sense:
    1. Make it impossible to buy guns online.
    A. Terrific, done! You cannot purchase a gun online (and never could).
    2. Have thorough background checks.
    A. Done! The Federal government already performs background checks on gun purchases.
    3. Close the gun show “loophole”.
    A. At least 80% of guns sold at gun shows are sold by FFA dealers, therefore, background checks are required. The other 20% are sold by your neighbor, because maybe he has an extra gun or two. He’s definitely not selling more than 5 a year, because the ATF doesn’t allow that without an FFA license.
    4. Don’t allow the mentally ill to buy or own firearms.
    A. Again, done! Those adjudicated as mentally ill cannot buy a firearm. Incidentally, those with domestic violence convictions are also prohibited.
    Those are the most common talking points, but certainly not all of them. I almost always respond with “It seems to me we should just make it illegal to murder children or anyone else. That’s real common sense.” Wildly unpopular with the left.

    • I think primarily because they just want to get the federal nose further and further under the tent. Each law they pass, however “common sense” or whatever, is another restriction on an enumerated right. It’s the proverbial frog being boiled.

      Of course they’d love to repeal the 2nd Amendment, but they know that’s a practical impossibility. So they just try to incrementally infringe upon the right, then say, “We did this, now why not that?”

  4. I have noted a shift from “Do something” to “Something has to change”. Nobody mentions WHAT has to change, however.

    • Ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I knew what needed to change.

      I remember reading and hearing stories about inner city violence, about how children were killed just for wearing the wrong color clothes, or for the shoes on their feet.

      There was one instance when a person was killed because gangbangers mistook his sign language for gang signs.

      Back then, over thirty years ago, I knew we had the most powerful Army in human history. I knew that we needed to declare martial law, and send in the most powerful Army in human history to quell the violence, like RoboCop’s ED-209.

      The murder of Stephanie Kuhen further reinforced my beliefs.


      The Army should have gone into the inner cities and suppressed the violence at any and all costs. The people there would not be treated art constituents to be served, but as enemies to be subjugated, just like they deserve. I knew then there was a war on our streets, and the war needs to be fought by the United States Army. Given what I knew about the Army then, I know they would win.

      I advocated this course of action for over thirty years; there are Usenet posts from me dating from the 1990’s making this argument.

    • Heh. Something Must Be Done is the dirge of rights, and always has been. The 1st Amendment is under the exact same assault using the exact same mantra.

  5. I asked this question on Quora and got an answer.


    “Juvenile facilities have more gangbangers per capita than schools in general. Why do NOT most school shootings happen in juvenile correction facilities?”

    There are all of the armed personnel present, the walls/fences, the metal detectors, the control and restriction of movement, the stringent screening of who can enter the facility, and layers of systems in place to keep people both out of the facility and in the facility. There is no comparison to be made unless you are suggesting to harden our schools like a prison environment. I don’t think anyone wants to see our children treated like prisoners.

    (emphasis added)

    This does not obviate the need for a harsh, brutal military crackdown on the inner city, where the country’s violence comes from.

    But we need to treat children like prisoners to keep schools safe from gangs. After all, Gainesville State School is safe.

  6. The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment and repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. (Citations omitted as unnecessary). I wholeheartedly support that position. However, that does NOT mean that the right cannot be regulated. That has also been clearly stated or clearly implied in even recent Supreme Court decisions. For stronger evidence of that than recent dicta or inference take, for example, what happened in the wake of the mob violence of the 1930s. President Roosevelt, assisted by the NRA, proposed the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, which imposed heavy taxes and regulatory requirements on firearms that were associated with crime, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. Gun sellers and owners were required to register (with the federal government) and felons were banned from owning weapons. The legislation was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1939. Therefore, one could conclude that those of weapons used may be regulated. AR-15s? And what type of regulation? (No, media, AR does not stand for “assault weapon” but for AramaLite Rifle, for the company that developed it in the ‘50s). An aside: The NRA was created by 2 Union soldiers after the Civil War with the purpose of promoting gun safety and marksmanship so northern folks might rise to the level of proficiency they had witnessed in southern riflemen. When I was in high school in rural northern Vermont, I joined the NRA so I could avail myself of their gun safety and marksmanship course. Now, the NRA is basically a political lobby. Too bad, I say. Return at least partially to your educational role. That might help.)

      • Actually, they were among the actions that quite significantly reduced the wave of mob violence. Of course there have been incidents of mob violence since then. Of course the laws did not eliminate murder! What a non sequitur. And my point really has nothing to do with effectiveness….only that arguments that the Supreme Court would strike down regulation of weapons (seen in this and other blogs) is specious. The Supreme Court has, on one occasion at least, unanimously upheld restrictions.

    • SCOTUS didn’t exactly uphold the NFA in U.S. v. Miller, defence didn’t show up and they remanded it back to the district while using language that would definitely encompass protecting weapons that would be in employ on a battlefield… Like, say, an AR-15.

      Miller was a much more appropriate place for a case to be moot, rather than NYSCA vs. NYC.

      • Miller was a mess from the start… A contrived case, with scrambled government objectives, no defense, errors of fact, and finally being remanded back to the federal district court for “further proceedings” which never actually took place.

          • Well, you have to start with the 1934 NFA, of course. Do some interwebbing.

            Surprisingly, Wikipedia has a half-decent recount of Miller, touching on why it satisfied neither side, and noting the question of why two WWI vets were seemingly unaware of the use of short-barreled shotguns (and automatic rifles, to a more limited extent) by the military (perhaps they were and covered themselves with “not made aware” phrasing, as the fact hadn’t been introduced in court). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

            Suspiciously, of the seven subsequent cases noted, there’s no following synopsis for Heller in the “Interpretations” section, and McDonald isn’t even mentioned except in the opening comments for the section (these being the two most recent supportive cases), although there are links.

    • There was more than a bit of elitism and racism in the formulation of the 1934 NFA, and it was essentially an end run around the Second Amendment. By imposing an (at the time) onerous and prohibitive tax on certain firearms, rather than a ban, they could ensure the items were only likely to be owned by the respectably well to do, rather than riff-raff like the Irish, Italians, Jews, and Negroes.
      Common handguns were originally meant to be included, too, but it was finally decided that was going a bit too far. I’ve read that that’s why “short-barreled rifles” are in the list, though, AFAIK, they were never a particularly problem. . Intended to block a workaround of the handgun restriction, they were just (maybe even unintentionally) left on the final list. Oddly, they’ve been commonly available in Canada until more recent restrictions there.

  7. Another School Shooting: Damnit People, Protect The Children!

    Dammit People, Protect The Children in school from these kinds of morally bankrupt shootings by upgrading the buildings so they’re not easily accessible soft targets, but dammit don’t try to destroy enumerated rights granted in the Constitution of the United States of America because you don’t have the intellectual fortitude to focus on the actual root cause and instead jump on the unethical rationalizing knee-jerk emotional reactionary “we have to do something” and “think of the children” bandwagon! Use your brains not your emotions!

    I have a real problem with the anti-firearms faction and their constant lack of logic and absolutely no critical thinking, all they have is pure emotion and blaming everyone but the deranged shooter holding the firearm, it’s as if they think the gun walked itself into the school and shot the place up.

      • Eh, be careful what you wish for. The military was only used in The Siege because the FBI, and presumably the NYPD, were in over their heads battling terrorists, in fact the FBI’s Manhattan office is destroyed utterly prior to this scene. In the past, when things have gotten out of control, at least until the great stand-down of 2020, the usual approach was to bring in officers from other agencies until things were successfully quelled. In extremis maybe the National Guard would be deployed. However, you saw in 2020 that the use of active duty troops is something no one, including the military brass, wants. How much of that is principle, however, vs. how much is the brass wanting to ensure they get to retire with full rank and then get invited to sit on corporate boards, etc., is up for debate.

        • I have wanted the use of active duty troops since 1992.

          My moral certainty on this issue has only been reinforced as more kids are killed by inner city violence.

          I remember this quote from The Siege. “You don’t go after a junkyard dog with ASPCA rules; you take the leash off your own bigger, meaner dog.”

          The leash should have been removed thirty years ago.

    • I remember some time ago here Jack discussed an advice column piece where a father was afraid because his sensible adult daughter bought a handgun for protection, in spite of her keeping it put away when she was home and learning to use it properly.

      That was when I realized that it really is the guns. There ate people who really are just terrified of the objects themselves. I think they see them like the One Ring from The Lord of the Rings; something that corrupts anyone who has it and tempts them to evil.

      I’ve since noticed this magical thinking in other taboos they have: anything Trump supports is evil, anything that resembles a racist word or symbol can cause harm no matter the context or intent… It fits nicely with the theory that the current progressivism is literally a religion.

      • Add to their magical thinking the belief that just one new law or regulation, on top of the thousands already in effect, will cure a problem.
        I’ve suggested to a few such people that they go ahead and tell their children that they (the parents) are hysterical paranoids, since they (the children) will discover this soon enough on their own. Why wait?

    • I have a real problem with the anti-firearms faction and their constant lack of logic and absolutely no critical thinking, all they have is pure emotion and blaming everyone but the deranged shooter holding the firearm, it’s as if they think the gun walked itself into the school and shot the place up.

      Right. That’s because irrational appeals to emotion work. Rational argument, on the other hand, requires an informed recipient to make sense of it, or else a lengthy explanation of why the argument makes sense. Appeals to emotion require none of that, provide instant talking points, and satisfy the desire to be outraged to show how much one cares.

      We often lament the lack of reason around here, but it is by design — not necessarily because these speakers in question don’t know how to make a rational argument, but rather because they don’t want to. They think appeals to emotion will be more effective with an uninformed population.

      I think they’re right.

  8. Here’s a quiz –

    Conservatives and Progressives-

    Would you accept a compromise where all guns are banned except for a single firearm at home with limited ammunition and all abortions are banned except when a mother’s life is imminently and actually endangered?

    I know my answer.

    • Michael West wrote, “Would you accept a compromise where all guns are banned except for a single firearm at home with limited ammunition…”

      As it stands right now, I think that would be unconstitutional so I would be against it.

      Also, how would they enforce it; think, illegal search and seizure.

      Would they grandfather in firearms that are already owned?

      Michael West wrote, “…abortions are banned except when a mother’s life is imminently and actually endangered”

      At least that one is not unconstitutional.

      • Assume all amendments can be made to achieve the compromise and assume that all good citizens abide by the bans understanding that there will still be law breakers on both sides of the ban.

        • I can say this.

          There would be little resistance if the Constitution were truly amended via the Article V process.

          On the other hand, if the Constitution were “amended” by five people in black robes pretending that the document does not mean what it says…

        • Michael West wrote, “Assume all amendments can be made to achieve the compromise and assume that all good citizens abide by the bans understanding that there will still be law breakers on both sides of the ban.”

          Assuming pigs can sprout wings and fly doesn’t make them sprout wings and fly.

          I don’t make assumptions to argue hypotheticals, I choose to stick to the reality that’s in our face.

    • No. That turns the right into a privilege. If you can restrict quantity, you can restrict everything else.

  9. Increasingly when it comes to firearms we see pure emotion coming from the anti-firearm faction where they completely overrule logic and critical thinking and the 2nd Amendment be damned. Talk about comparing apples to oranges, trying to do what New Zealand did with their strict gun-control laws is not possible here in the USA, the USA has the 2nd Amendment New Zealand does not have an equivalent.

    • New Zealand didn’t even have anything resembling a bill of rights until 1990,well after Canada, which finally got the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Trudeau’s dad in the 1970s. The thing is, it can be (and has been) amended with a simple vote, and was amended after the Christchurch mosque shooting to essentially make instant felons out of law-abiding gun owners who had nothing to do with that massacre. Of course NZ also has a prime minister who is roughly the equivalent of AOC, who is a darling of the leftist media. They hailed her for not just flattening the curve, but squashing it – until it turned out not to be so effective. NZ has not a damn thing to teach us, and in fact a lot of Kiwis are openly hostile to Americans, mocking us as second-place finishers in Vietnam and strutting about the day they disallowed our ships from docking there, virtue-signaling before virtue-signaling was a thing. They might do well to remember that the one thing that saved them from becoming essentially a Third World nation whose most important industry was sheepherding, was a movie franchise 20 years ago. Suddenly everyone wanted to see where the Lord of the Rings was shot. Otherwise they’re about as piddly a small nation as ever there was. Their navy has only two ships worth even mentioning and their air force has no combat capability.

    • I will remind us that the 2nd Amendment does not give US Citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It reads that the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. I believe that means the right exists regardless of the 2nd Amendment or the Left’s desire to infringe upon it.

      I’ve said it a hundred times: when politicians try to take your guns, it’s because they intend to do things that would normally get them shot.

  10. Anti-gunners seem to think that simply putting a firearm in the hands of a human being completely changes the personality of the human being and turns them into evil murderers much like what the hats do in one of my all time favorite Bug’s Bunny episodes called Bug’s Bonnets, here’s a sample of the episode…

    That kind of magical thinking is where the anti-firearms fanatics logic and critical thinking ends and transparent brainwashed absurdity begins.

    Magical Thinking is a kind of irrational thinking that causes a person to completely reject critical thinking and replace it with absurd reasoning because their bias tells them it’s true.

  11. I hope fake Latinx Robert O’Rourke has created the unforced error from which his political career will never recover:

    Mere feet away from TX Governor Greg Abbott in Uvalde, O’Rourke: “You are doing nothing […] You said this was not predictable, this was totally predictable, and you choose not to do anything.”

    Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin to O’Rourke: “sir you are out of line. Please leave this auditorium.

    You’re out of line […] I can’t believe you’re a sick son of a bitch who would come to a deal like this to make a political issue.” (bolds/italics mine)

        • Easy as pie, my friend. This incident happened in Uvalde, on the fringes of West Texas. Wesat Texans have long been known as Independent Cusses. So, when the Fed wants to “solve” a problem for them, they are very likely going to say “This is our problem, we’ll find a solution. Butt out.” Incidentally, every one DID notice that the psycho’s first face-to-face encounter with a law man from West Texas resulted in the psycho’s death? I hope that wasn’t lost on anyone.

  12. To the ire if his fans, Schmuck Schumer has announced that he won’t be seeking to push gun control legislation soon. My guess is he sees dems are already in big trouble and persecuting the sane and law-abiding in response to crimes by democrat-coddled criminals and loonies might not help, though he’s probably already written off the Georgia seat.

    “Sponge-Brain Shits-Pants” Hadn’t seen that one before; Involuntary snort and snigger.

    • He claims it’s so that Chris Murphy and others can talk Republicans into walking the electoral plank. No doubt some will be willing, but not ten of them. He knows that.

      He’s just setting it up so he can point fingers at as many Republicans as possible by using the squishes as emphasis. It’s the oldest trick in the political playbook for losing issues.

  13. After the weekend, we used to have firearms left in the trunks of our cars parked in the high school lot (and pocket knives in our khakis). Even the rare fistfight never involved a weapon. As far as effective functionality, firearms haven’t significantly changed in over a century, and are more restricted.

    I think society has already “done something” since then, and it wasn’t something good.

  14. For your edification, I submit the following:

    Click to access USSS%20Averting%20Targeted%20School%20Violence.2021.03.pdf

    Also, there is no public k-12 school (16 of them) in my county that does not have at least one full-time sworn, armed School Resource Officer, restricted access, strict security procedures and an extensive video surveillance system of the school buildings and grounds. We began the SRO program in the mid-1990s and started at the high schools, working our way down to staffing all the elementary schools by 2001. We are not a wealthy county but made school safety a priority. Our schools love their SROs and vice versa.

  15. Yet another mass shooting and a call for more commonsense gun control laws. Without the details being known or filtered as is the case with the Buffalo shooting, we have no shortage of answers from gun control activists, politicians, and media. Never mind that they never play Monday morning quarterback and explain how the commonsense gun controls they demand would have prevented the latest mass public shooting.

    These specious calls for action are unethical, immoral, and dangerous. They won’t solve the problem and they prevent an honest discussion and evaluation of solutions that may diminish the incidence rate of mass public shootings. The failure to perform root cause analysis will probably lead to more deaths.

    To me it seems there may be a correlation between mass public shootings, the woke culture of white male-bashing, and the possibility of social media influencing and inciting an individual to commit mass murder.

    We hear a constant drumbeat of how bad white males are and how racist they are. They are totally irredeemable. Young white males carry out most mass school shootings. I suggest adolescence is tough enough without society telling you that you are scum. As these young men try to compete with others’ profiles on social media, it is easy to see how some could spiral downward. Anger, loathing, and self-hate can easily grow and fester.

    Social media and wokeness however are sacred cows. They cannot be attacked because they are too useful to progressives and politicians for promoting division in society. Woke principles promote victimhood. This victimhood allows politicians and others to be the saviors for all the downtrodden. Never mind that the solutions offered don’t work. Never mind that the solutions make things worse. The solutions are good for the acquisition and expansion of power and the mantel of superiority.

    What our society needs I doubt will come to pass on a large scale. Unlike most progressives, I do not believe utopia is attainable. However, to do nothing leads to despair. It opens the door to the unscrupulous.

    As Rahm Emanuel stated, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

    We as individuals need to stress that all our members have value. We need to focus more on building up individuals and less on tearing them down. If we count our blessings and discount our misfortunes, we stand a better chance of finding happiness and peace. In my experience, this mindset works even on the days when being vertical and taking solid food are the only blessings that come to mind.

    We need a society that has a more “us” and less “them” mentality. We need to not support politicians, academia, and the media’s promotion of victimhood.

    We need to help those who are struggling with mental issues. And ultimately, we need to condemn and punish evil acts. For it is the acts of mentally ill or evil people that are the problem, not the tools that they use to inflict harm.

    In support of this supposition, I offer the following articles for consideration.

    What we know about mass school shootings in the US – and the gunmen who carry them out
    : “all of the mass school shootings in our database were carried out by men or boys. And the average age of those involved in carrying out the attacks was 18.”

    “Inspired by past school shooters, some perpetrators are seeking fame and notoriety. However, most school shooters are motivated by a generalized anger. Their path to violence involves self-hate and despair turned outward at the world, and our research finds they often communicate their intent to do harm in advance as a final, desperate cry for help.”

    When media changes adolescent moods & anxiety

    “When kids see a curated version of other people’s lives online, they can often feel like they’re not having as many interesting or positive things happen to them. These negative comparisons increase risk for depression and anxiety.”

    The Demonizing of White Men
    “actual quotations from people in the media, academia, and the political and entertainment arenas—the attack on white men as a class.”

    Don Lemon, a CNN anchorman, said, “We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them.”

    Teen Vogue, a magazine targeting teenage girls, wrote, “Not only is white male terrorism as dangerous as Islamic extremism, but our collective safety rests in rooting out the source of their radicalization.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.