Saturday, December 15, 2012

We need a 60-second rule.

The recent horrendous mass killing in the Connecticut elementary school (it hurts to write that) is more evidence for what is perhaps the salient lesson of 20th century governance:

Liberalism kills.

For fifty years liberals have told us that guns cause crime. We passed gun control laws again and again and again and again. It is always and everywhere illegal to have guns on school property, or even near schools.

Do gun control laws work?

The question answers itself.

What the gun control mentality does do is create gun-free zones. Victims who are guaranteed by law to be unprotected. Which to shooters is like flame to moths.

Liberal "solutions" to mass shootings encourage mass shootings.

More stringent gun control is worse than useless. It perpetuates conditions that make mass shootings easier. What idiots would want to do that? (you know who you are).

So what can we do?

We need guns-- in the hands of responsible people. We need security. Armed security.

Let's look at the places that aren't gun-free zones. The White House isn't a "gun free zone". You can't carry a gun there, of course, but there are lots of guns at the White House. At the doors, on the grounds, in the building, on the roof. My son and I visited the White House last spring. Armed snipers on the roof watched us. There are lots of guns at the Capitol, and at state capitol buildings and legislatures across the country. There are guns around movie stars, famous television personalities, in the entrance foyers of place of business and the homes of the rich and powerful.

If you start shooting at the White House or the Capitol or at the home of a heavily guarded cultural potentate, you are dead. In seconds.

The people who tell you that guns won't protect you are themselves surrounded by highly trained people who carry guns to protect them.

Our schools need the same security our congressmen and senators and presidents and elites get.

That will stop school shootings. Immediately. The simple knowledge that anyone drawing a weapon in a school has a life expectancy counted in seconds will end it. It is the defenselessness of the victims and the control that shooters have-- even and especially the control over their own deaths-- that drives them. Mass shooters love gun-free zones, because it gives them ultimate power, over the lives of innocents and over their own lives.

We need to take that power away. Every school needs armed security guards, well trained, ready to protect the kids. It can be simple. We need a "60 second" rule: no active gunman in a school should live more than 60 seconds. We need trained armed guards in our schools and colleges and malls and theatres-- everywhere where the banning of guns has permitted mass murderers to kill without hinderance.

But how can we afford this, you liberals ask? Your sudden interest in government spending is refreshing. Consider this. There are 100,000  K-12 schools in the U.S. School systems already have security personell, but consider the cost of hiring, training, equipping two armed security guards for each school, at say $100,000 each per year. That's $20 billion dollars per year to end school shootings. It would also hire 200,000 workers, and the security folks could contribute to school safety in other ways (fire safety, protect kids from harassment, theft, molestation, etc). Heck, we pissed away a trillion dollars in "stimulus" to Democrat contributors and pork and "green" jobs boondoggles. That would've paid for 50 years of security at every school in the nation. The half billion dollars we pissed away on Solyndra would have paid for security guards at more than a thousand schools for a year. How much would guards at Sandy Hook Elementary have been worth? More than paying off Democrat bundlers who own stock in solar panel companies?

If we can afford to pay off our bundlers, we can afford to protect our children.

We need to jettison idiot liberal gun-control mentality that doen't work and merely serves to disarm victims and disarm the law-abiding citizens and professionals who could protect them.

Can you think of anything more stupid than the liberal policy of creating gun-free zones-- defense-free zones-- in which shooters know they can kill with impunity?

Cop-free zones attract criminals. Airlines without security attract hijackers. Adult-free zones with lots of unprotected kids attract pedophiles. Homes without security alarms attract burglars.

Gun-free zones attract mass shooters.

We know how to end it. 


  1. Or America could do what Australia did in 1996, and crackdown on gun ownership. Have a mandatory gun buy back, and allow ownership of guns only to those who need them, mainly workers who are exposed to predators such as grizzlies, pumas and polar bears.

    What is it about Americans and their love of guns? Is it a feeling of phallic inadequacy and impotency?

    Remind me again how the very liberal gun ownership laws help to have a well trained militia.

    1. The right to bear arms belongs to the people, not to the militia.


    2. @bachfiend: No one answered your question "What is it about Americans and their love of guns?" I'll take a crack at it.

      I think it's about the fact that having access to tools of violence gives you a certain degree of freedom - it effectively makes you a member of the nobility or ruling class. It ensures that your voice is taken seriously, that you get a seat at the table where decisions are made, whether that table be big or small.

      A big part of it is also the fact that America is a nation built on and driven by ambition. Everyone is trying to "get ahead" here. Sometimes that's a good thing - I think this national culture has driven a lot of the scientific and artistic innovation America produces. But frequently it's ugly and competitive. An armed populace can serve as a sort of check on the uglier consequences of this ambition, from home invasions to declarations of martial law.

      No doubt your neighbors and leaders in Australia are more civilized than mine here in America, and if you can sleep sound at night knowing that they aren't going to try to find some way to screw you, then I kind of envy you. My family experiences a robbery or break-in about once a year, and we have at least that many instances of corporate fraud (e.g. overbilling by apartment complexes or cable service providers or what-have-you) and government overreaching. It's just the way American culture is. The strong prey on the weak, and guns sometimes serve as a sort of equalizer.

  2. Nothing is too low for Egnor. Instead of blaming the gun culture and easy access to guns, Egnor blames (of course) liberals. Amazing he didn't blame atheists and evolutionary biologists, too.

    But of course, Egnor cares nothing for the kids who were killed or the families of those kids. All he wants is another cudgel to beat his imaginary foes with.

    1. It's not a gun culture, it's a violence culture. Guns are the tool. The perpetrators are the problem.

      He has a point. All the gun free school zones in the world didn't stop this man, just the same way that restrictive gun laws in Chicago and Washington, DC haven't succeeded in lowering violence in those cities to Australian or Japanese or Swedish rates. In fact, Chicago and DC are absurdly violent.


  3. You know what I think is pretty low? Exploiting a tragedy like this to strip us of our constitutional rights. When something bad happens, some people just want to shred the Constitution and restrict liberty. It's worked so well in the past. The Patriot Act, perhaps?


    1. So what is it about America? Why is it that so many Americans feel that it's an infringement of their liberty if they're not potentially able to shoot someone who has pissed them off.

      I feel perfectly free in Australia. The thought of having to have a gun fills me with repugnance.

      I ask the question again. What is it about Americans and their guns? Is it phallic inadequacy? Are Michael and Joey protesting too much?

    2. I'm happy about how free you feel.

      American is not Australia. We can discuss the details later.

      Let's look at gun violence in the US by demographic:

      Virtually all of our gun crime is committed by Democrats against Democrats in municipalities governed by Democrats.

      In Chicago and Washington DC and New Orleans young black men (Dems) kill young black men (Dems) in municipalities governed by Dems.

      In Newtown Conn., a young man (Dem) kill school personnel (Dems) in a deep blue state governed by Dems.

      Perhaps that's why America has more gun violence than Australia. We don't have enough Democrat control.

    3. Where's your evidence that Adam Lanza was a Democrat?

      You really are insane.

    4. He's in a Democrat demographic, a**hole. Read my comment.

    5. That's not what you said, Egnor. You said, " a young man (Dem) "

      Typical pathological liar. When called on his lies, he lies some more.

  4. The 20 littlest victims of this shoot all had more emotional maturity than you've portrayed in this post, Egnor. No matter how you try to mis-direct, no matter how you duck and weave, no matter how you scream "Liberals!", you will not change the simple fact that you are to blame for the fact that Adam Lanza had two powerful handguns and an assault rifle.

    You and your ilk are to blame for the fact that life and liberty was stripped from 20 children and 6 adults in your home state. Other countries achieve much lower rates of gun violence through appropriate, life-saving laws. But we can't do that in America because of emotional infants like you staunchly defending the rights of anyone to own well-made, efficient citizen-killing tools.

    And your answer to this latest incident - MORE GUNS! Yeah, that's the ticket!

    So go ahead and beat your chest and advocate a SWAT team for every school while you avoid looking in any mirrors.

    1. The handguns were obtained legally by his mother. She was a middle-aged kindergarten teacher, and would have been allowed to own guns in her home under even the most strict gun control laws.

      The "assault rifle" (what a stupid term) is reported to be a Ruger .223, which is a popular varmit rifle, used by tens of millions of hunters. Is is semi-automatic, which is routine for hunting rifles. Even if it were bolt-action or lever-action or pump-action, it wouldn't matter. Oswald killed Kennedy with an old WWII bolt action rifle. No assault weapon there!

      Two things made this killing possible, in the sense that something could have stopped it:

      1) The killer's will. He could have stopped it.

      2) The fact that the kids were undefended. We can stop that.

      Why do you oppose defending the kids?

  5. Dr. Egnor is absolutely right. We need to put guns in schools. Arm kindergarten teachers. Arm kindergarten students. When every citizen carries a gun, criminals will be shaking in their boots.

    No Left Turns

  6. The guns the killer used were legally purchased and registered pistols owned by the killer's middle-aged kindergarten teacher mother. No gun control law that even the craziest liberals have proposed would have denied that mother gun ownership.

    There are several hundred million guns in the U.S. There always will be hundreds of millions of guns in the US, whatever the law. Guns don't wear out-- these guns will still be quite useable hundreds of years from now.

    Eliminating guns in the US is not a practical option, and obviously is unconstitutional anyway.

    Identifying and stopping mass murderers is also not practical. You can't lock up every loner who has neighbors who think he's a bit odd.

    The only thing you CAN do is to do what the powerful and the rich already do for themselves-- armed security. There is no reason why we should not protect our children.

    We could do it relatively easily. It would provide jobs for several hundred thousand folks-- unemployed or retired cops, ex military people, etc. Every school should have at least two armed guards. No shooter should ever-- EVER-- again be able to enter a school and shoot without hinderance for the 15-20 minutes before police arrive.

    60 seconds. No more.

  7. Right, give lots of unemployed people guns and let them roam the schools. What could possibly go wrong with that?

    Egnor is insane. Why do they let him near students?

    1. They let me near students because I am a good teacher. I know that actual qualifications, as opposed to political litmus tests, is anathema to you.

      I realize that if guys made the rules, I'd be toast. You have such totalitarian instincts. So I try really hard to make sure guys like you don't make the rules.

  8. As tragic as the murder of these innocent people is, the posturing and moral preening of the left is amazing.

    Here's the problem...

    The left believes in performative utterances. Performative utterances are utterances, verbalizations, that have an effect in the physical world.

    For example, God said "let there be light" and there was light. and Jesus said "this is my body" and the bread was His body. It's doesn't matter whether or not you believe in God, those are two examples of performative speech.

    Performative speech can also occur among humans. "You are fired" make a real difference in one's life. More eloquently, Churchill's magnificent performative utterance,

    "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..."

    sent millions of men and tons of arms and ordinance into yet another war with the lunatic left.

    The common denominator of divine and human performative speech is power. To move the world with words, power is required. It's simple physics; power is the ability to do work, and it's work to move the physical world.

    Leftists believe that the speech of government, written law, is performative. Perfect the laws and the institutions and mankind will be redeemed. It's a salvation story. "Let there be no more guns" will eliminate guns. Utter those words, write that legislation, sign it into law, and the problem is solved. No more of these horrifying incidents.

    Leftists, always suckers for a story that pumps the self-regard and pride, fall for the "you will be like gods" pitch every time. Gods have power, even the little ones that strut around in the halls of government, corporations, and academia. And gods utter performative speech, don't they? So leftists believe that they can issue words on paper and move the world. Everybody wants to "make a difference".

    As Egnor noted, the loudest voices for gun control are the powerful poseurs who surround themselves with guns and are infected with the same disease, the same ambitions to divinity on the cheap, that eventually eliminated the Caesars. And the little men, the toadies and the lickspittles who cluster at their feet for supplication and sustenance, the cheerleaders for the personality cults so beloved by the left, will beg for more words to ease their pain and assuage their fears.

    And the very tin gods who surround themselves with guns and, in Orwell's timeless words, "sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf" would deny me the same human right?

    As they say, call for a pizza and call for a cop and see which one gets there first.

    So, to the gun grabbers, the toadies, and the lickspittles, I can only say:

    Bite my ass.

  9. If you think the Nazis were the Left, you're as insane as Egnor. If you think the main support for gun control comes from rich people, you're even more crazy.

    Crazy people attract crazy fanboys, I guess.

    1. Gun control is the moral preening of rich liberals. Ask people who live in high-crime neighborhoods if they'd like to be able to protect themselves.

      Nazis were socialists. Socialists are of the Left, in any rational definition of "Left".

      Do you honestly think that the "Rightist" Nazis were the opposite of the "Leftist" Communists? Hitler was the opposite of Stalin?

      Pure bullshit. The original left-right distinction was the seating of delegates during the French revolution-- the traditionalists (King's supporters) sat to the right, the revolutionaries to the left in the assembly.

      "Right" means conservative and traditionalist. "Left" means revolutionary and socialist. Nazis and Communists were both manifestly of the Left. They were mortal enemies (although there was much cooperation between Nazis and Communists as well), but the Left is a collection of mortal enemies-- a fissiparous crew of thugs and crazies.

      Nazis, Commies, and Socialists are wholly denizens of the Left.

      Traditionalists and Conservatives (eg moi) are Rightists.

  10. "... We know how to end it."

    On more main truth that "liberals" will never acknowledge.

  11. I understand the reactions I read in these responses. They are the natural and visceral reactions. To somehow prevent nightmares like this. To disarm and to increase security are among the first ideas that pop up.
    As has been noted in the previous comments it is both impractical and unconstitutional to somehow disarm the populace, and increasing the security of schools to levels where the use of lethal force is encouraged is, at best, a stop-gap measure and worse still a truly draconian measure. Who want's armed guards outside their kids class rooms?

    It seems to me the sane thing to do would be have a nominal perimeter and detection system, backed up by a single (or partners for a big school) armed guards.
    Guards who can call local law enforcement for back up.
    A good lock down policy, to close off areas and rooms to potential threats are a good idea too.
    The horrible sad truth is that we live in a world where truly evil acts DO occur. We tend to think it cannot happen 'here' or 'to us', but it can.
    There is not much anyone can do to stop a maniac like this - not completely.
    But there is much we can do to possibly detect people like this and even to limit the impact of their cowardly attacks when they do occur.
    I don't see disarming the populace or security rings as effective measures, in the long term. You may want to check the weapons in the vicinity at the time of a sweep, and you may want to post a heavy presence immediately after to prevent any sort of follow up(s). But for a long term solution you have to look for causes...for motive.
    So far we have the whole 'nerd genius' story.
    The word 'Goth' has been bounced about.
    Are we seeing another manifestation of the twisted mindset that killed the kids at Columbine?
    Could be.

    1. crus:

      I certainly defer to security experts on the necessary measures and tactics. It seems to me that if we are to stop this, we must have armed security-- several officers-- in each school.

      It is the only thing I can see that would have consistently stopped all of these monsters.

      We need zero tolerance, and we need to do what it takes.

  12. It seems to me that if we are to stop this, we must have armed security-- several officers-- in each school.

    Right, more guns. Like, for example, there are never any shooting incidents on military bases.

    You're raving mad. You should not be allowed anywhere near a kid.

    1. [Right, more guns. Like, for example, there are never any shooting incidents on military bases.]

      Military bases in the US are gun-free zones, ace. Soldiers are virtually never allowed to carry personal weapons, and military weapons are only allowed on designated ranges.

      Military bases have very strict gun control. That's one reason the the Fort Hood shooter killed so many. None of the soldiers were allowed to carry guns.

    2. Just a thought... 200,000 security guards, armed with guns, presumably in body armor, in elementary schools, under the stress of being required to take down an intruding shooter within 60 seconds (and it appears that this latest shooting took just a few minutes, not 15-20 minutes).

      What happens if the security guard himself 'cracks'? You'd obviously want the most stable individual you could find, require them to undergo background checks and psychological tests, but what if the guard develops an unrecognized medical condition (say, a brain tumour), and becomes the shooter himself?

    3. That's evident to any sane person, bachfiend. But sanity is not present here.

    4. Military bases in the US are gun-free zones, ace.

      No, they're not. You shouldn't believe conservative propaganda. Military bases have security personnel - you know, like the same guys you are proposing for schools - and they carry guns.

      But facts have never been Egnor's strong suit.

  13. "@bachfiend: No one answered your question "What is it about Americans and their love of guns?" I'll take a crack at it."

    The question is itself question-begging, and is asked as such; thus, it is intellectually dishonest.

    "... It ensures that your voice is taken seriously, that you get a seat at the table where decisions are made, whether that table be big or small."

    To put it another way: "The armed man is a citizen; the disarmed man is a subject."

    To put it yet another way: "The man who disarms himself shall plow for the man who does not."

  14. "A big part of it is also the fact that America is a nation built on and driven by ambition. ... It's just the way American culture is. The strong prey on the weak, and guns sometimes serve as a sort of equalizer."


    Human beings are driven by ambition ... that "the strong prey on the week" is just how human beings are. And, as a matter of fact, there has always been less of that in America, and there has been less of it precisely because (until recently, as the "progressives" have gained cultural and political power) our culture and laws do not throw up intentional road-blocks to anyone "getting ahead".