In the USA, after every Columbine style massacre, of which there have been many, the same old arguments rage. Should 'gun control' be brought in or tightened ....
.... but the debate is always stalled by politicians who will publicly shed many tears over the deaths, but privately block, or better still, quietly stall, any gun control legislation that's proposed.
But no matter how bad the crime, the US seems to be prepared to keep its citizens "right to bear arms" (in defence of the state) .... with the price being the occasional massacre of the innocents.
There is just no bipartisan consensus on the issue, with some, supporters of a big reduction in the rights to bear arms, while equally there are a vociferous group of others, backing the ideas of 100% gun ownership, as proposed by the National Rifle Association (NRA). Of course, the NRA only have to keep the status quo, so any resistance or threat of vote withdrawal to Senators or Congressman by such an organised group, is enough to forestall any changes, even assuming there is an appetite for such changes (and that's by no means a certainty).
But amongst all the arguments, the one that struck me as most bizarre was the NRA line that 'teachers in schools should be armed', in order to better defend the students if a shooting attack occurs.
That one idea says more about the difference between the US and Europe (or even their neighbours Canada), than anything else. The fact that the primary advocates of gun ownership, in a straight faced manner, will argue in the debate, that US teachers have to be prepared to have gun fire-fights with deranged teens in the class rooms and corridors.
This is frankly such an amazing argument, that in any other civilised country it would have lost the debate, but not in the US. So going forward, the job description for the US teacher will be, 'marksman or woman, willing to put life on line', oh, and if you have any qualifications in teaching, it would be an advantage.
Mind you in a week when a nine year old girl killed her gun instructor, and a couple of years ago, a five-year-old boy shot dead his two-year-old sister in the US state of Kentucky, using a gun marketed for children called the 'Crickett' (can you imagine making guns for children?), and many children (mainly white) are trained in gun defence, perhaps its for the best if the teachers are routinely armed.
Still you can't make this stuff up. My solution?
Have a full referendum on banning private ownership of automatic and semi automatic weapons in the US. Take the matter out of corrupt politicians hands and pressure groups, and let the people speak .... if they are prepared to accept an occasional school shooting or massacre, as the price for the right to bear arms, then let them say so.
In the land of the free, let them have a free choice ......
 |
| Arming US Teachers Advocated By Some ...... Such As The NRA |
.... but the debate is always stalled by politicians who will publicly shed many tears over the deaths, but privately block, or better still, quietly stall, any gun control legislation that's proposed.
But no matter how bad the crime, the US seems to be prepared to keep its citizens "right to bear arms" (in defence of the state) .... with the price being the occasional massacre of the innocents.
There is just no bipartisan consensus on the issue, with some, supporters of a big reduction in the rights to bear arms, while equally there are a vociferous group of others, backing the ideas of 100% gun ownership, as proposed by the National Rifle Association (NRA). Of course, the NRA only have to keep the status quo, so any resistance or threat of vote withdrawal to Senators or Congressman by such an organised group, is enough to forestall any changes, even assuming there is an appetite for such changes (and that's by no means a certainty).
But amongst all the arguments, the one that struck me as most bizarre was the NRA line that 'teachers in schools should be armed', in order to better defend the students if a shooting attack occurs.
That one idea says more about the difference between the US and Europe (or even their neighbours Canada), than anything else. The fact that the primary advocates of gun ownership, in a straight faced manner, will argue in the debate, that US teachers have to be prepared to have gun fire-fights with deranged teens in the class rooms and corridors.
 |
| Teacher Training US Style. |
This is frankly such an amazing argument, that in any other civilised country it would have lost the debate, but not in the US. So going forward, the job description for the US teacher will be, 'marksman or woman, willing to put life on line', oh, and if you have any qualifications in teaching, it would be an advantage.
Mind you in a week when a nine year old girl killed her gun instructor, and a couple of years ago, a five-year-old boy shot dead his two-year-old sister in the US state of Kentucky, using a gun marketed for children called the 'Crickett' (can you imagine making guns for children?), and many children (mainly white) are trained in gun defence, perhaps its for the best if the teachers are routinely armed.
Still you can't make this stuff up. My solution?
Have a full referendum on banning private ownership of automatic and semi automatic weapons in the US. Take the matter out of corrupt politicians hands and pressure groups, and let the people speak .... if they are prepared to accept an occasional school shooting or massacre, as the price for the right to bear arms, then let them say so.
In the land of the free, let them have a free choice ......
Hollywood doesn't help when it constantly depicts guns as a force for good - baddies rarely get up after being shot and goodies, whom the bullets seem to miss or to cause minimal, non-life threatening damage, soldier on, continuing to mow down the bad guys, on their way to making the world a better place.
ReplyDeleteThe more guns, the better is the message as the avenging hero straps on and tucks in as many pistols and automatic weapons as they can on their way to rid the world of the latest terrorist threat.
And that's probably nothing when compared to all the shoot-em-up video games which do all of the above and have the player actually pulling the trigger in order to attain their goals.
The constitutional argument needs to be debunked through education. It is a sweeping and outdated amendment which has been hijacked by proponents of gun ownership who WANT rather than NEED to own lethal fire power, and manufacurers who want to sell their product, increase their profits and to hell with the consequences.
The second amendment was adopted in 1791, before the advent of small and powerful automatic weapons. The constitution needs to move with the times, to argue that it shouldn't be changed is an argument against the amendment itself.
10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down
I have dealt before with US gun control and the myth of the 'right to bear arms' (linked in main post} ... but yes, it would certainly help inform the debate, if the facts being presented to the US public were honest.
DeleteAs everyone no doubt is aware. President Donald |Trump (still cant get used to that phrase), has backed the NRA policy of 'armed response teachers' after another school massacre. It is hard for outsiders to understand that hold the NRA has over politicians in the USA.
ReplyDelete