After Santa Fe We Must Do Something!

It's Time To Recognize That Gun Control Options Are Limited And Turn To Other Options

Web Page - Facebook - YouTube

This horrible crime was committed - not with so called "assault weapons", but with a .38 revolver and a shotgun.  Both are quite commonly owned.  In this case the firearms were stolen from the young man's father.

Furthermore, the death toll would have been much, much higher if a school resource officer had not confronted the active shooter.  There is little question that, without using any of the guns some people want to ban, he could have killed as many students and teachers as at Parkland.

Gun control advocates say they want to do something. Just what do they want to do?

Assault weapons ban? (None were used at Santa Fe.)

Ban all handguns? (Cannot do that - they are clearly protected by the 2nd Amendment according to the Supreme Court.) 

Ban all shotguns? (Same problem.) 

License gun owners? (Would not have stopped Santa Fe, as the kid stole the guns from his dad, who would have been licensed.) 

Ban so called "assault weapons"? (None were used at Santa Fe.) 

Safe storage laws? (Maybe - but SCOTUS has severely limited what can be enacted.)  

Repeal the 2nd Amendment?  (Politically impossible.)

What Santa Fe proves is that gun control options that are possible will do almost nothing,  Massive gun bans and sweeping gun control laws are both constitutionally and politically impossible.  Anything else - assault weapons bans - safe storage laws - expanded background checks - will simply not stop these horrible attacks.  The constant focus on gun control is preventing actions on other fronts that actually could stop these many of these mass murders and greatly limit the causalities when they do happen.

It's time to protect out schools the way we protect our celebrities. politicians and our homes:

1) We lock the doors of our homes.  We limit access.

How many people leave the doors of their homes open?  Yet, this is essentially what we do with our schools.  In many schools, there is not so much as a locked door between a potential attacker and the students and teacher they want to kill.  Even some gun control advocates are beginning to understand that gun laws are not going to stop school shootings.  Mark Kelly, the gun control advocate whose wife, Gabby Giffords, was shot and badly injured in 2011, said: “We should figure out a way to prevent people coming in the door with a firearm.”

Just what is it going to take to stop someone from "walking in the door with a firearm"?  Well, first you have to limit access to one or two entrances.  People coming in must be screened, ideally though a metal detector.  Finally, armed security must be present to prevent someone from simply shooting their way through the security checkpoint.

Obviously, there is more to securing a school than this - but those are the basic, common sense measures that have to be done.


2) Our politicians and celebrities are protected by threat assessment units

It isn't good enough to react only after the assault takes place - we need to detect threats to students and staff, if at all possible, before they result in attacks.  In the case of the Parkland murderer, the warnings were many and they were literally ignored by both federal and local law enforcement.  No one connected the dots.  Had they done so, Parkland could have been stopped.

In the Santa Fe shooting, there were also warnings.  Specifically, in the future murderer's behavior of stalking a female student.  Was the school aware?  Did they advise a restraining order?  Were the shooter's parents made aware of this behavior - so they could perhaps make doubly sure he could not get to their firearms?  Would anyone have known if the young lady had obtained a restraining order?

It's time that we make sure that someone is there to connect the dots.


3) We protect our politicians, celebrities and homes with guns

Frankly, I am sick and tired of politicians and celebrities - who are protected by armed security - telling us that guns are not the answer and we and our children should be defenseless.  Let them fire their armed security before they demand that our kids should be defenseless.

Furthermore, everyone is protected when criminals and other evil doers do not know if your home has a firearm.  In the UK, home invasions - in which an armed burglar enters an occupied home - are very common.  Here in the US, they are rare - because in the US, breaking into an occupied home is a good way to get shot.

Consider this excerpt from an article in the Washington Post:

While you note the possibility of deterrence regarding the home, let me make it explicit by pointing to the different rates of so-called "hot burglaries," where a resident is at home when a criminal strikes. In Britain, which has tough gun control laws and bans, almost half of all burglaries are "hot burglaries." By contrast, the U.S., with laxer restrictions, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13 percent. Criminals are not just behaving differently by accident. Convicted American felons reveal in surveys that they are much more worried about armed victims than they are about running into the police. The fear of potentially armed victims causes American burglars to spend more time than their foreign counterparts "casing" a house to ensure that nobody is home. Felons frequently comment in these interviews that they avoid late-night burglaries because "that's the way to get shot."

The hypocrites pushing civilian disarmament know full well that guns protect people and save lives - that's why the make sure that their security people are armed.  It's also why - when asked - these politicians who are against arming qualified school personnel - refuse to post "gun free zone" signs at their homes!

Watch The Same Politicians Who Support "Gun Free Zone" Signs
At Schools Refuse To Post Such A Sign At Their Homes

First and foremost, phony gun free zones at schools need to end.  I say phony gun free zones, because that is exactly what a supposedly gun free area, secured with nothing more than signs is - PHONY.  They are worse than doing nothing at all - because the serve only to disarm the most law abiding people - and to inform people intent on evil that they will face no armed opposition for however long the police take to get there.

We Have Tried The Policy Reflected By The
Sign On The Left. How Well Is It Working?
Wouldn't The Policy Reflected By The
Sign On The Right Be A Greater Deterrent?

While we certainly want school resource officers, they cannot be everywhere on campus.  As with Israel's excellent system pf school protection, they must be backed up a small number of well qualified and trained armed teachers and school staff.  It is a myth that not enough teachers are willing to assume this awesome and heavy responsibility.  Hundreds have flocked to free firearms classes offered by law enforcement.  A recent poll indicates that 18% of Ohio teachers would sign up to be trained and armed.  Even if only half of these teachers pass the training and background checks, that still would enable nearly 10% of teachers to be armed.  A combination of well trained and qualified officers and armed staff is a proven way to protect kids.  It's time to stop believing the myth that guns will make the schools more dangerous and admit that we need to protect our kids the way celebrities and politicians are protected - and the way many of them are protected at home.

Yes, we need to do something.  No one is advocating doing nothing.  The real question is this: Will we focus upon more gun control laws and phony gun free zones that protect no one - or will we do something that has been proven to work by decades of experience in Israel?  I'm in favor of the latter.