> TEOTWAWKI Blog: How do we protect our children?



How do we protect our children?

The gun banners on the left are already using the Sandy Hook shootings as a new platform to promote gun control. I've seen far more talk of new gun laws--including introducing many which are already in existence--than I have of helping survivors, dealing with mental illness, and so on. No, the left and the media are politicizing the deaths of these poor children to further their agenda.

If you want to be really disgusted by the nation, though, read some of the comments sections at the end of the articles on gun bans. I've seen calls for confiscation of every gun by force, gun owners to be lined up and shot and all manner of disgusting, irrational knee jerk reactions. And, of course, the media is happy to quote commandant Bloomberg, the guy who banned large soft drinks, and the Chinese government on how they think we should run our country.

It's a frightening time for our nation, and I'm concerned about where things go from here, and just angry in general. I wasn't going to dive into this issue on T-Blog out of respect for the victims of the shootings, but the way the media seized on the gun control issue, I feel like I need to.

In a speech the other night, President Obama declared that we, as a nation, were failing to protect our children from harm and violence. I agree completely. Something should be done.

But let's think RATIONALLY about this for a second--not hysterically.

If we have something or someone very valuable, how do we protect it? With armed guards. Mr. Obama travels the country with a small army of secret service agents to ensure his safety. Celebrities, politicians and the wealthy have armed body guards. Banks have security guards and armored transport.

None rely on laws and "gun free" signs, because, deep down, these people KNOW THEY DON'T WORK!

Everything the shooter in Connecticut did on Friday was against the law! Did that stop him? Connecticut has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation...did that help?

The Columbine shooting happened DURING the last assault weapons ban--did that help?

Mexico has incredibly tough gun laws--and they're in the middle of a near civil war with well armed drug cartels!

By extension, cocaine, heroin and crystal meth have been illegal for a long, long time, but that doesn't stop the drug dealers and addicts from getting a hold of them!

Laws don't stop criminals or the violently insane from doing anything! If the perpetrators are caught breaking the law, then our legal system can go to work on punishing them, but laws are NOT preventative to those who are really serious about committing their crimes. They just don't care!

The mass shooting lunatics are fundamentally cowards--the maniac on Friday shot himself at the first sound of a defensive response. And they don't go shoot up places where they know they will find opposition to their murderous, suicidal rampage. You don't see many mass shootings at police stations, gun shows, or even places where there is even only a relatively small armed presence--moderate security and a few on-duty police officers at professional sports have kept lunatics away from those targets.

Allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons is not the complete answer--it might be part of it, but you need a united show of force, at every school.

There are hundreds of thousands of ex-military and very well trained civilians who stand ready to respond to a call to watch over and protect our schools and our children--on a paid or volunteer basis. Give them more training. Make them pass through pre-qualification tests. Vet them all that you want. Then, let them get out there and actually PROTECT our children, in the same way that President Obama is protected.

With the unemployment rate still high and a President who likes to spend, this kind of program could be a powerful tool for both securing our children and providing meaningful jobs. There are roughly 100k public schools in the United States, and if we were to hire two trained security professionals at each school for say, $50k a year, that would bring the rough cost to $10B a year. In the grand scheme of government spending, that's not a lot of money.

And, because it's America, you could just ask for volunteers and many of us would gladly raise our hands and jump through training requirement hoops in order to just help out, free of charge.

This is how you truly protect our children and our schools from murderers like this. Provide armed, trained opposition--not hope that laws will do the job for you!


  1. You guys sure could do with a more rigorous screening, cooling off and acquisitions process, but more than that, there seems to be a need for tighter storage requirements that are enforceable. I certainly envy the types of firearms available to you over there, but the fairly lax control on who gets access to firearms and how they are stored seems to keep popping up. I'd just like to point out, I am not pointing at this incident; the shooter shot the gun owner (his mother), so there was probably nothing storage was going to do to stop him short of a combination/pass code lock on a gun safe.

  2. With the unemployment rate still high and a President who likes to spend, this kind of program could be a powerful tool for both securing our children and providing meaningful jobs. There are roughly 100k public schools in the United States, and if we were to hire two trained security professionals at each school for say, $50k a year, that would bring the rough cost to $10B a year. In the grand scheme of government spending, that's not a lot of money.

    Don't get me wrong, I am fully on the side of the ride to bear arms and I knew the knee-jerk reaction would happen and I'm completely surprised it didn't happen after the tragedy in CO.

    This is an interesting idea. However, you open the situation up to another problem. Even properly vetted, you stand the risk of introducing potential sex offenders into the school systems. While it's deplorable to even bring that topic up, it's something that needs to be considered.

    Also, what about schools in areas where children are likely to be better armed than the volunteers? (I'm thinking some inner-city children) Or was idea to only be for schools K-5? I know a lot of schools now have a resource officer in 6-12 which, hopefully serves as a deterrent.

    1. There are lots of volunteers and full time employees working in our schools today who *could* be child molesters. I would think anyone trusted to open carry on a full time basis in/around schools would go through a much more stringent vetting/background check then say the football coach or science teacher.

  3. Mexico is in a drug war because the US provides a high paying market for drugs (a thing that hopefully someday soon changes). And those drug cartels work internationally, they are not concerned whether they have to buy guns locally or internationally because they have the resources to do either, a local lunatic in the US doesn't need those resources because he can easily get his gun in the friendly neighbourhood gun store or apparently from his mom that did a heck of a job keeping her family safe with that particular gun, so bringing up Mexico's armed drug cartels as an argument against stricter gun control laws if flawed.

    1. Ok - how about Switzerland, which has one of the highest per capita rates of gun ownership in the world, and also one of the lowest homicide rates?

  4. Don't know the numbers but I would bet that more children are killed by car accidents or by other family members than are shot with a gun by a stranger every year. Yet I see no bans on children riding in cars or staying with family members. We won't see the basic facts and numbers since the liberal media will hype up the gun ban thing since it makes for a better news story.

  5. "gun free Zone" = "mass murders ahead"

    We depserately need two things. First, change the culture of non defense. This idea that we should cower in a corner and await our fate is insane. Even without weapons you need to attack, attack, attack. You are probably dead anyway but in a place like VA Tech had the students thrown everything they could get their hands on at the killer he wouldn't have killed more than a few people. We need to train/indoctrinate our kids to throw books, computers, staplers, chairs, anything at the attacker and then either swarm the attacker or RUN LIKE HELL! Second, allow those adult volunteers at the school who wish to arm to do so. School teachers should be trained like airline pilots were under the Bush Administration. At their own expense if required. I am positive that most of them would spend their own dime if they had to to qualifiy.

    Telling me I can't have a 30 round mag won't help a damn bit! The 9-11 hijackers flew three weapons of mass destruction into targets, and crashed a fourth airliner, with box cutters and the biggest domestic violence crime in US history was the result of a rental car, fertilizer, and diesel fuel!

    Colorado Economist


    I seldom claim to know THE answer. I believe there are a few caveat situations where MY answer will not directly address the issue but for the broad picture... I have the answer. How do we protect our children?

    Become fathers and mothers who are-by definition-exactly that. I will step on toes, but no matter. Papa and Mama Bear have little fear. If we follow the masses to public school each day, we hope our kids will be safe. It is a smoke and mirror game. Momma "feels" good about her child's safety in their local school, so she goes about her life outside the mother role. The childs education, spiritual tutelage and life skills are left up to an institution that promotes homosexuality and forced inoculations while ignoring real knowledge, God and independent living skills.
    Take them out of public school. That is THE answer. The fathers, if at home at all are often happy to let their wives not be mothers while they themselves neglect fatherhood. Usually when a man neglects to father his children, often he also lacks in the husband department too.
    Take them out of public school. Homeschool produces intelligent children (if done right). To brag on an example... My two year old sounded out the first four letters of "simplify". Sim...p! Wow. You CAN do it, mama! You CAN do it, daddy!
    An active shooter would have to face an armed guard if he picked my kids school. He might have to face two, depending on the day.
    It is easy to make excuses why you cannot, but must just WON'T. But I say we should use these events as an excuse to start homeschooling. Our children are far beyond testing levels (4 kids) and we spend maybe $600 a year. And if mom and dad both have to work to keep up mortgages on boats, cars, and houses... Then maybe site down and discuss what your current parenting path will produce and which is more important.
    If both parents work full time, then there is no mother in the home. There are ways to alter the traditional family and still experience great success, but the effort is substantial. Be a Dad in your family. Be the Mom your children need. If you have not begun to have children and you are not willing to parent, you may find more happiness by not having children. They are not pets that serve only to pleasure the procreation urge of adults.
    But I live in a state where it is illegal to homeschool.... MOVE to another state.
    Their safety is only ONE of the many benefits that we can secure. Also consider private schools that have armed teachers or guards, if not able to teach your own children.
    Please don't surrender your children to public schools!

  7. Not sure if anyone noticed but it has come out now that the Oregon mall shooter was confronted by a civilian with a cc license. He drew on the shooter but did not shoot due to an unsafe background, however the shooter ducked into hiding and then killed himself. Story has been buried of course but I found it by googling Oregon mall shooter conceal carry.

    1. I hadn't heard this - and yes, it's been buried, completely. Thank you!

  8. Your precious second amendment does not do what it used to anymore! You live in the biggest military might in the world, do you really think that those AR15's you've been stocking are going to keep you safe from your government if they deside to turn on their people, when they have stealth bombers, drones, tanks and nuclear subs? All that the second amendment does now is give every lunatic the right to bear arms.


      With all due respect, your comment lacks factual base. I would initially assume that this is a malicious troll comment, but I see how it is possible that you may actually believe those statements based on propaganda going out from our country. Also what your home country says and believes about us is likely not accurate.
      #1 2nd Amendment still does the same thing. It is merely an enumeration of one of a trillion God given rights. I don't need a piece of paper to guarantee a right that God gave to me. I do like to read it though.
      #2 The largest military might in the world is a heavily armed People. Military does not trump an imbedded armed populace. Read up on your armed engagement history for clarification.
      #3 The 2nd Amendment denotes the Peoples right to bear arms, lunatics have the right too, until such time that a "lunatic" points his gun unlawfully at an armed UNLUNATIC. At that point, the "lunatic" has forfeit his right to best arms and to breathe.
      Sir or maam, your statement makes little sense and may be better received in your own country.

  9. have you heard about the gun controls in Australia And he effect on killings there. Very interesting, but you won't really like it because they actually reduced gun deaths, and have not had a mass murder since the laws went into effect. Check out articles on Australia gun laws.

  10. I understand that there are times and places when carrying a firearm may be inappropriate; however, if ccl's were as prevalent as driver's licenses(a similar government issued identification that allows the use of a type of tool that while useful and practical, can also become deadly if improperly used), I feel that instances involving firearms related fatalities would dramatically decrease. If it was the norm for the majority of people to carry, these tragedies could be avoided or curtailed. How many harmful shootings occur at gun ranges? I'd guess less than the percentage of harmful car crashes on the freeway.

    On a related subject, is it just me, or are others saddened that it takes a horrible tragedy to get people to consider the state of their laws?

  11. Mass shootings in Europe—Facts

    Agence France-Presse
    First Posted 03:27:00 04/10/2011

    Following are the worst mass shootings in Europe, after a gunman opened fire in a packed mall in The Netherlands Saturday, killing six people and wounding at least 10 others before shooting himself dead.

    - September 24, 1995 - France

    Sixteen people are killed and many injured in the southern French towns of Sollies-le-Pont and Cuers when a 17-year-old boy goes on a shooting rampage. He kills himself a few hours after the carnage.

    - March 13, 1996 - Scotland

    A deranged gun collector kills 16 children aged four to six and their teacher at a school in Dunblane, Scotland. He then kills himself.

    - September 27, 2001 - Switzerland

    A man bursts into the local assembly in the central Swiss town of Zug and opens fire, killing 14 and then turning the gun on himself.

    - March 27, 2002 - France

    Eight people are killed and 19 injured when a man opens fire on members of the municipal council of Nanterre, a region of Paris. He kills himself the next day while in police custody.

    - April 26, 2002 - Germany

    Sixteen people, including 12 teachers and two students, are gunned down at a school in Erfurt in eastern Germany by a 19-year-old former student, apparently in revenge for having been expelled, who then killed himself.


    Look at Europe, we should be more like them and ban weapons and outlaw guns and make it all safer for our children! Once we rid ourselves of guns we will be as safe and secure at Europe is.

    What?!?!??! That massacre in Norway that killed 77 people with a gun and is not listed above, that was an anomaly. Ignore all the facts, the only way to make everyone safe is to get rid of all the guns. Then we will be just like Europe - safe, secure and free from violent crime.


  12. In any country with a large amount of firearms in circulation there will be these tragic incidents. It's that simple. Looking at it from a (incredibly simplistic) point of view that for every, say, 100 people there will be a bell curve of people who should be able to bear arms. The majority of people fall within that 95 % of people who know how to properly use and have the mental capacity to bear these firearms, however in any country where firearms are widespread the 5 % will have ample access to these as well.

    Some people suggest that having a public that is more heavily armed would inherently reduce gun crime. However the majority of these attacks are made with high powered, assault type weapons, where as the public would be armed with, at most, a concealed handgun. In order to reduce the amount of gun related crime with this mentality you would have to legalise the carry of high powered, assault type weapons to the general public, and once again we have arrived full circle to allowing this 5 % the same rights as the 95 % to carry these high powered weapons. I appreciate the 2nd amendment and I hear that you don't want to let go of your guns but surely you can enter into this debate with an open mind and see that perhaps more control on firearms may be part of the solution for the simple fact that, as mentioned above, any rights that you have MUST be given to the 5 %.

    Either way I think we can all go into this debate with one goal in mind: To set aside our self interested feelings and find out how to protect the society at large.

    Also just as a side note gun control does not equal a total ban, and fr any results to be seen it will take a long time for the simple fact that there are so many firearms in circulation (i.e. Australia handled this problem with the highly efficient gun buy back scheme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#In_Australia).

    1. You're suggesting that good people forfeit their God given rights because a minority abuse them?

      Why stop there? Surely, there's lots of places we can tighten up laws to protect society at large? The Australian program was a "compulsory compensated surrender" - a forced buy back. We could use that elsewhere--offer a check and get people to sign away their rights!

      How about freedom of speech? There's lots of people who abuse that. Think of all the troublesome protests that could be stopped!

      How about freedom of religion for some of those far-out-there types?

      What about protection from unreasonable search and seizure? You'd catch a lot more criminals and would-be terrorists if we got rid of that one!

      Let me guess, you're not from the U.S., are you? And your country has probably stripped away most of these rights long ago?

      No. I'm sorry. Unlike others, we will not give up our rights so easily.

      That doesn't mean that current laws don't need to be better enforced (felons, mentally unstable, are prohibited from owning guns). Or that many gun owners need to do a better job securing their firearms. Or that some gun owners need to take a step back and look at whether it is safe for them to have firearms in their home--given unstable children, relatives, etc.

      I did not want this to become a debate (and did not expect it to, given the subject matter here). I've got really zero tolerance for any Anti-2nd Amendment sentiment here. You're not going to find any support for it - take it elsewhere.

      I'm going to lock this one up to new comments. I don't have time and don't need the frustration of responding. Got more positive things to focus on during this season.