December 16, 2012 Family Politics 0

Laws don’t stop massacres….read on.


But they’re not what people are promoting, especially those who are always looking for a way to shove you in the hole — right after they remove your ability to resist.

And let’s not kid ourselves — that’s exactly what happened in Connecticut.  The teachers and staff in that school had no lawful means to resist, because they accepted (and probably even supported) the fallacious argument that laws (paper) stop bullets.  They learned, too late, that this argument is and always has been false.

A murderous thug, enabled by foolish reliance on pieces of paper, shoved them in the hole.

If you believe that “gun control” (of any sort) will stop these events you’re suffering from a severe case of logical fallacy — or delusion.  The worst mass-murder in a school wasn’t committed by Adam Lanza.  That distinction belongs to former school board treasurer Andrew Kehoe, who got*****ed off about a property tax levy and detonated three bombs in Bath Township, Michigan, killing 38 elementary school children, two teachers, a handful of other adults and himself.  Nearly 60 were injured.

That murderer also killed his wife and set his farm buildings on fire just before he set off the bombs. 

Believe it or not, Bath Township got off light.  There were over 500lbs of additional explosives planted in the buildings that failed to go off; he intended to destroy the entire school and presumably kill everyone inside, but the second device failed to explode.

Nor do you need a gun to commit mass-murder in general.  One of the worst mass-murder events in US history was committed in 1990 with a gallon of gasoline; Julio Gonzalez, who was later convicted of arson and murder, spread gasoline on the entrance to the club and set it ablaze.  87 people died.  Not only did the gasoline cost far less than a gun, it is much easier to obtain.  Do you recall any hue and cry for the banning of gasoline, or even for gasoline-powered weed-eaters and lawn-mowers (or, for that matter, portable generators) — the predicate items that for sane people compel them to buy and use a portable gas can, and thus make portable gas cans available to homicidal maniacs?

Next, let’s talk about the school once again, because here we see an over-reliance on half-measures and “feel good” ideation as well.  The school locked the doors and required a buzzer to enter, which sounds reasonable.  The problem is that they didn’t armor the glass in the immediate vicinity of the door, making possible a trivial forced entry.  A person intent on homicide doesn’t care if he breaks a window (a petty crime) first.  You can’t reasonably replace all windows with shatter-proof panes (e.g. wired-mesh glass that can be shot through but will not break in a fashion that allows entry) but you can do so for that glass in an entry door or in its immediate vicinity, and you can for small windows in and immediately in the vicinity of classroom doors.  You can also equip classroom doors with cylinder deadbolt locks that require a key from the outside to open, but can be operated without a key from the inside.  These enhancements, which are pretty inexpensive, would have thwarted the shooter’s forced entry into the school and if he gained entry to the building would have prevented his entry into the classrooms.  There are reports that teachers had to use file cabinets and their bodies to barricade the doors; one was shot and injured doing so.  That’s outrageous when a quality deadbolt-equipped door and metal frame bolted to the structure of the building costs only a few hundred dollars. 

I want to know who was behind the changes made to “secure” this school and what sort of analytical process was undertaken, whether it was debated in the open at a school board meeting, whether the public was involved, and whether the public was invited to think about and comment on the path undertaken and its expense.  Again, while hindsight is always 20/20 if the fact that a plate window was in the immediate vicinity of a “locked” door was not looked at as a security problem then I question both the people and the process involved in “hardening” this installation.

Next, let’s talk about the adults in the school.  We already require training on sexual assault, child abuse and similar issues for school teachers and administrators.  Why do we omit self-defense from this list, when our teachers and administrators claim the right of in loco parentis during school hours for our children? 

That omission is asinine.

via Solutions For CT: There Are Some in [Market-Ticker].