Media has been reporting (actually, propagating a leftist politically divisive narrative) on another national, so-called debate on gun control/gun rights (although, you hear plenty about control and little about rights). But where is the discussion? Where is the debate? The anti-gun Left shouts down conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans when they try to present their side of the gun issue in public forums.
The gun control Left accuses the gun rights Right of “having blood on their hands” because they don’t agree with the Left’s views on a political issue. This is ironic because the Right does not accuse the Left of wanting kids to die, even though the Left’s amorphous and ineffective “solutions” are more likely to result in tragedy.
At the very beginning of the recent, now-infamous CNN town hall meeting ostensibly held to discuss and debate the gun issue, a student used an obviously well-thought-out statement to set up a false premise to attack Senator Marco Rubio. First, he told Senator Rubio “it’s hard to look at you and not look down the barrel on an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz…” Where is the discussion or debate in that first statement? How can the discussion progress toward any rational solutions when only one side dictates the terms?
Next, the boy challenged Rubio with this “non-partisan” question: “Can you tell me you won’t accept a single donation from the NRA?” As if that is a real-world solution to school shootings. It wasn’t; it was a partisan political question. He then said either the senator was for a gun control solution or he was for accepting campaign donations from the NRA—who, apparently, want armed criminals to kill kids. A perfect leftist equation: Either you believe as we do, or you want kids to die. What a way to begin a civil discussion—an honest debate.
And did CNN moderator Jake Tapper “moderate” the discussion with an early request for civility. No. Did he take the time to put the issues in the context relevant to conducting such a contentious debate? No.
Several times, audience members heckled Rubio and NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch with calls of “murderer” and other, not-so-civil comments. Last I checked, neither Rubio nor Loesch was involved in the Parkland school shooting. Only Nikolas Cruz was. Tapper abdicated his responsibility to his guests on one side of the issue and sided with the other—better ratings, I suppose.
Tapper knew this CNN game would not be played on a level playing field. Rubio and Loesch were in for a drubbing. All they could do was take it with all the aplomb they could muster. I believe they did that. After all, their opponents were untouchable. Rather than temper the discussion, Tapper exacerbated the attacks through his lack of moderation.
The only time Tapper interfered with CNN’s one-sided questioning ambush was when he interrupted a student questioner who began to ask Florida Senator Bill Nelson a provocative question that she said was meant for Dana Loesch (CNN’s apparent meddling with student questions is another scandal worth its own investigation). Tapper would not allow the student to ask that question of Senator Nelson —a Democrat— thus protecting him. A courtesy not extended to the conservatives on the panel.
Tapper knew Rubio and Loesch would not be able to defend themselves as the students and parents were unassailable victims of a recent tragedy. With the obvious assistance of anti-gun, leftist groups, the parents and students planned from the outset to turn the event from one set up to discuss real solutions to a partisan leftist scolding. Although, the setup part was true.
Now, everyone knows the first student who spoke to Senator Rubio is grieving. Polite society may excuse his insolence. He deserves some latitude and space to vent his emotions and express his opinion. But people should acknowledge that, because of his real grief, it was impossible for his adult opponents, a U.S. senator and an NRA spokesperson, to challenge the kid’s erroneous assumptions about gun control without looking like ogres.
However, the young man’s emotional state does not change being wrong on an issue. It does not change that he joined CNN and other media in exploiting his own, though articulate, youthful —perhaps, childish— emotional and politically partisan response, which he used to commit psychological extortion.
Every honest person should at the very least acknowledge Senator Rubio’s and Ms. Loesch’s courage in attending and keeping calm during this CNN-sponsored flogging.
During one of President Trump’s White House meetings with parents and students impacted by the school shooter, Mr. Trump asked who was in favor of armed guards on campus. While some raised their hands, a greater number did not. That’s hard for someone like me to imagine. Some people can’t get past their politics and “feelings” about guns to try something that actually works to better protect their child. As a person who knows firsthand how good people use guns to protect themselves and others, that notion astonishes me.
I can’t imagine being a parent of a child whose school was just targeted by a mass shooter and turning down an offer of armed security to protect my child from another similar incident. Armed protection in schools, whatever it would look like, would surely be more effective than shouting, “No guns,” “F%# the NRA,” and “Ban all guns” for CNN’s cameras and passing ineffectual gun bans.
The Left advocates for every law they can conceive of such as a seatbelt, helmet, and other self-protection mandates, but they recoil in mock affront when an effective solution is offered that would protect students from crazies with guns. They sure don’t like it if the solution comes from the Right.
The media is deriding President Trump for presenting valid ideas, such as arming some teachers. Some on the Left have accused Mr. Trump of wanting to arm “all teachers.” The Left’s art of conflation is alive and well.
The president never said he wanted to arm all teachers. To suggest he said this is not only untrue, but also ridiculous. Whoever made the allegation is not serious, but exposed as just another malicious Trump hater. Mr. Trump talked about arming qualified teachers who want to take part in such a program. And many do.
Look, the hysteria over arming some teachers is nonsensical. This is probably how it would work: Teachers who wished to, would apply and then become certified to carry a concealed firearm after a training course. They would then have to re-qualify at a gun range at regular intervals.
During the training, other than learning how to use the firearm, teachers would be trained, in the event of an active shooter incident, to escape with the kids to safety if possible and, if not, to shelter in-place with their students. The teacher would use the gun as a last resort to protect the kids should the gunman breach the classroom door. Since active-shooter incidents are dynamic events, the situation can change suddenly and often. Trained teachers would use their intelligence and common sense to make decisions to best protect their students.
Tell me this: If your child was huddled in a classroom with 19 other frightened students and one teacher hearing gunshots just outside their classroom door, would you rather that teacher be armed or unarmed? I know my answer.
Unlike what some on the Left say, teachers wouldn’t be running around the building, creating cross-fire situations and confusion for the police. Ninety-nine percent of all armed teachers would never have to put their training to use—thankfully. Contrary to the fake stats the Left throws at you, school shootings are rare.
After all, most police officers, even after decades-long careers, never had to shoot anyone. While school shootings are obviously tragic, they are still unusual. Annually, drivers kill 10 times as many kids riding their bikes or walking to school as school shooters do. This is not to diminish the tragedies, but to put the actual threat into perspective. John Stossel calls it the “School Violence Myth.” Schools are still generally very safe places for kids.
The Left always contrives ridiculous scenarios when discussing putting good people with guns in schools to protect children—actually, with anything involving guns. When my department evolved from revolvers to semi-automatic handguns back in the mid-90s, leftists predicted Wild-West shootouts and all manner of carnage in the streets. Over two decades later, none of their dire prediction came even close to happening.
In a piece for the March 2018 issue of America’s First Freedom, an NRA magazine, Charles C.W. Cooke backs me up: “As with concealed carry, opponents of the right to open carry constantly predict that any liberalization will lead to shootouts in the street and widespread ‘intimidation’ of those who aren’t armed. But this never happens.” Never!
The anti-gun Left insists on serving up useless platitudes and feeble tropes after every mass shooting. There are no arguments remaining that the Left’s absurd gun-banning ideas don’t work. Their ideas have been tried and they failed.
A federal study found that the ten-year (1994–2004) Assault Weapons Ban (including a ban on high-capacity magazines) had zero effect on reducing gun violence. More mass shooters have used handguns than rifles to commit their horrific crimes. Yet, gun control advocates are calling for another assault weapons ban. For what purpose? To make them feel good, I suppose, because that’s all it would do. Kids will still die.
As Rush Limbaugh said recently on his radio show, “the next shooter is already out there. The next two or three shooters are already out there. They’ve already got their guns.” We need to protect students against that person—those people—who are going to try to shoot up a school despite the Left’s gun-free zones, their calls for “No Guns,” or their hate for the NRA.
The Right offers suggestions that, even if they are admittedly uncomfortable, do work: Harder access to school buildings. Install ballistic glass and panels on first-floor classrooms. Install metal detectors. Conduct active shooter drills. Implement enhanced student mental health monitoring. Establish police department sub-stations in schools. Post armed security, and/or arm qualified teachers and administrators within the classrooms.
While, as a society, we hate to “give in” to such solutions, and though it may feel as if we are surrendering to terror, it is inarguable that these strategies work. Are we giving in to fire, carbon monoxide poisoning, or burglars when we equip our homes with locks and alarms? This is not about giving in to evil; this is about protecting our kids from evil, while also protecting American constitutional rights.
We need to look at these solutions in a broader context. For example, following the Columbine school shooting, many law enforcement agencies, including mine, implemented frequent “Active Shooter/Rapid Intervention” training for all officers. And, aside from teaching cops how to respond effectively to a school shooter, wouldn’t it be prudent for students, teachers, and administrators to know what to expect when police arrive? Shouldn’t the kids know what to do, and what not to do, to make things easier for the cops to get the bad guy?
Back in the 50s and 60s, it was uncomfortable for communities to put students through nuclear attack drills, but society did the hard thing. They took protecting our kids seriously. And, I’m certain the firearm-centric tactics offered by the Right would protect students much better than hiding under desks.
The gun-control Left ignores facts—for example, the huge decrease in gun violence in America over the past few decades. But what has increased during this decrease? A national news media with 24/7 reporting and an insatiable need to pedal leftist political propaganda. And sadly, not just reporting it, but more often misreporting based on a reflexive anti-gun narrative.
So, while national gun violence is down dramatically (something the national media won’t tell you) that same media inundates the nation with wall-to-wall coverage of every mass shooting.
The Left’s emotional, irrational, ineffective, feel-good “solutions,” such as “Gun-Free Zone” signs and wishing the culture was different, do not work. Society has to look at what works.
As others have observed, guns have not changed over the past century, but something in our society and culture has. Most guns today work as they did in the 1970s, 1950s, 1930s, and earlier, but school shootings, though still rare, didn’t occur as they do today.
Since we know gun control doesn’t work, don’t we owe it to our kids to be open-minded enough to look at solutions, even if they make us uncomfortable?
As one of Dr. John Lott’s book titles informs us, and I’m certain it seems uncomfortably counterintuitive to the left, “More Guns Less Crime.”
