DEFEND OUR CHILDREN
Why is defending our children rocket science?
Laws are in place. Schools are gun free zones. But why are the schools themselves still defenseless?
What are we NOT doing, that can be done, to REALLY protect our Children in school?
How come we don’t model protecting our Children off how we protect our politicians, celebrities, courts, and money? Are politicians, celebrities, courts, and money more valuable than our children?
Below are some measures the government can take IF THEY REALLY CARE ABOUT OUR CHILDREN AND NOT THEIR POLITICAL AGENDAS:
- School district / state policies to regulate the entrance and exits of students and that specifically address the instances of an active shooter, locking doors, trigger silent alarms, and giving the teachers the ability to defend the students.
- Metal detectors and/or metal detector wands at the controlled entrances and exits of schools.
- Volunteer/paid security staff (of whom pass state and federal background checks and receive all required firearm training) on the school property to respond to any security threat promptly.
- Dress code and backpack requirements and/or limitations.
- Enable law enforcement to conduct more frequent school property / locker searches.
- All above measures can be funded through federal funding without a need to increase any taxes. The federal funds are made available by diverting or discontinuing less important federal funding projects. Instead of sending money to Planned Parenthood or Syria for example, send them to our schools.
This way our children get the same level or protections our politicians, celebrities, courts, and money does. Works for them.
There are military veterans who would be more than willing to volunteer to protect children… they did that already; volunteered to serve a country that hates them. There are plenty of organizations and companies willing to donate the equipment for safety and even donate to help fund the safety costs…
Parents need to start attending any and all open forums that discusses school safety and start demanding that the schools themselves are actually MADE SAFER! DO SOMETHING! STOP DEBATING, PREACHING, AND POINTING FINGERS! Take Action, organize town halls! call your schools, call your school board! attend meetings! FIGHT FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN!
Whats the problem?
The fact that Gun Control advocates are demanding MORE laws just PROVES laws aren’t working. The fact that schools are gun free zones, proves that gun free zones don’t work.
What what is enacting MORE laws going to do exactly? School shooters don’t obey laws. Therefore, more laws will do absolutely nothing to protect our children in school.
Funding isn’t an issue. Planned Parenthood gets 30 million in federal funds. Syria was given millions of dollars by the Obama administration. Why pay foreign aid to countries that us that money to fund terrorism. Why dump so much money in the United Nations and not just require other countries to step up their contributions. Pretty sure there are a lot of pathetic unfruitful government programs out there they can divert funds from.
Red Flag Laws… sound good, but school shooters should not have been in possession of a firearm under per-existing laws. What are Red Flag laws going to do to prevent this? Nothing, except give the government the ability to remove more guns from the public (that’s the point, shhhhh).
Background checks… are already conducted for all firearm purchases, yes, even at gun shows. Throwing the word “Comprehensive” in front of “background checks” does not change what is already being done. Again, something these school shooters would not have passed in the first place. But what did background check laws do for schools shooters, nothing.
MANIPULATION OF STATS AND LIES
ARGUMENT 1: Gun Restriction Reduces Violence:
You will hear all about reduction of gun usage in areas were there are strict gun laws but what they fail to point out is the drastic increase in the use of other objects to commit violent acts. England is the proof of this. The stat that is also left out is the increase in victimization. People are attacked the same, just with different objects, but now have less means of self defense. Let us not forget, MEXICO has extremely strict gun control laws yet has 5 times more gun related homicides than the US. The 29 year ‘assault’ weapons ban (1980-2009) had little to no impact on homicide rates. In fact states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders. (Mark Gius, “An Examination of the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws and Assault Weapons Bans on State-Level Murder Rates,” Applied Economics Letters, http://www.tandfonline.com, Nov. 26, 2013).
ARGUMENT 2: The Amount of Guns correlates with The Amount of Violence.
Gun ownership does not increase gun violence. gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased (Thomas Sowell, “The Great Gun Control Fallacy,” http://www.theguardian.com, Dec. 18, 2012). John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, “States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Switzerland and Finland has the highest gun ownership rate per capita in the whole world, yet, the lowest gun homicide rates in the world.
ARGUMENT 3: High Capacity Magazines.
You will hear that high capacity magazines were used in half the mass shootings, but you won’t hear that the shooter either did not use the weapon with the high capacity magazine or the shooter did not even use all the ammunition in the magazine. Thus, rendering a high capacity magazine as to no effect. Though these items are not necessary, banning them is just a waste of time and serves no real purpose for addressing the real issues.
ARGUMENT 3b: Bump stocks.
You will hear that bump stocks need to be banned because they make weapons into full auto… The logic here proves the ignorance of the person arguing. If the shooter does not have a bump stock, they can just pull the trigger, faster. But, again, these items are not necessary, banning them is just a waste of time and serves no real purpose for addressing the real issues.
ARGUMENT 4: Protecting Women from Domestic Violence.
You will hear that we need more gun control to protect women from abuse and domestic assault. What they fail to tell you is that the women of the statistics were not carrying a weapon to have the chance to defend themselves. In fact, the CDC report, that 2.4 million weapons are used in self defense incorporates this in its self defense stats. Also an interesting point is that they also fail to mention that current laws to prevent homicides related to domestic violence already exist and were not followed; thus, the law was irrelevant.
ARGUMENT 5: More Laws Make it Harder for Criminals.
You will hear that a June 2013 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report states that “[a]lmost all guns used in criminal acts enter circulation via initial legal transaction.” Between 2005 and 2010, 1.4 million guns were stolen from US homes during property crimes. What they won’t point out is that this is a violation of current laws… thus, proving that laws don’t stop criminals… similar to argument 1.
ARGUMENT 6: Reducing Suicides.
You will hear that 51% of suicides use a firearm. But much like the case in England, someone willing to attempt suicide will just use one of the 49% other tools. The issue is not the tool but the desired act and to achieve the desired act, any available tool will be used. The 49% found a different tool and did not need a gun.
ARGUMENT 7: It is the governments job to protect us.
Already been addressed and is the most sad and pathetic argument in the history of the human race. See We Don’t Need Guns, We Have The Police and The Government Will Protect Us
Gun Control arguments fail unless they admit the true intent of the goal. To disarm the society so criminals have no guns to illegally attain. Sounds noble, if you want to dictate someones freedoms and rights, which, is not freedom or right. If you want to be the oppressive tyrant that tells another person how they can and cannot defend their child and family. Sounds a little Nazi-ish. But go right a head with your nazi seeming, self-righteous self and you tell people how they should live, without guns. Sounds ‘Murican of you; dictating someones freedom. *sarcasm* read : No One Wants To Take Your Guns, We Just Want To Take Guns
How about you protect the kids first, then “preach” your oppressive tyrannical gun control later. I say “preach” because Gun Control advocates aren’t looking to have civil discussions and debates…