You knew it was coming. Democrats, hardly able to contain their enthusiasm for their new-found excuse for the kind of gun control they've always wanted, couldn't even wait for the victims of the Connecticut shooting to be buried. From President Obama's thinly veiled threat to the outright demand for yet another "assault weapon ban" from Democrats like Senator Diane Feinstein, the gun control zealots are on the march. It is not the pro-self-defense folks who are politicizing the deaths of children - it is the anti-gun mob, led by Obama and the Democrat usual suspects like the inimitable Illinois Senator Dick Durban.
Naturally, the mainstream media talking heads jumped on the "gun control" bandwagon, while continuing to astonish us with their complete lack of understanding of firearms (e.g. calling a 223 carbine a "heavy weapon" - Marines would laugh out loud at that one). CNN's resident liberal-emeritus, Soledad O'Brien, dropped all pretense of being an objective journalist, completely discounting the fact that virtually every mass shooting occurs in so-called "gun free zones" and refusing to admit that arming people would solve anything, in spite of the number of cases where armed citizens intervened and stopped the attacker long before police arrived. She even editorialized that the idea of allowing regular people to carry guns to protect themselves "boggled" her mind.
What boggles the mind of anyone with an I.Q. above a houseplant is that Ms. O'Brien is so naive (dare I say, stupid) to believe that some silly "No Guns Allowed" sign is going to cause a psychotic killer bent on mass murder to suddenly change his mind and go home to watch "Survivor." On the contrary, such a sign has the exact opposite affect - it serves as an enticement, announcing to all the world (including a prospective mass murderer) that "this is a defense-free killing field, so come on in and do what you will - no one can stop you."
CNN's Piers Morgan, another ex-patriot Brit who still hates America for the drubbing that his beloved British Army took at the hands of those pesky Colonials, was of a similar view. He virtually attacked crime and violence researcher John Lott, not even allowing Professor Lott to answer the questions he was asked. Unfortunately, ignorance about guns and the affects of gun control seems to be a resume enhancer in the newsrooms of most networks and newspapers.
The reason for this almost religious zeal on the part of those opposed to people owning, much less carrying, firearms for self-defense is that their views are essentially just that: a religion. Thus no amount of fact, empirical data, or serious research will change their view, that "guns are bad" (unless, of course, when they are carried by police...or the armed bodyguards of "special" people like Soledad O'Brien and Piers Morgan).
Think about it - these same people who barely raise an eyebrow at the idea of armored car guards carrying guns to protect bags of cash, suddenly go apoplectic over the prospect of teachers carrying guns to protect young children. If that's not misplaced priorities, I don't know what is.
There is also the discussion about medication - a glaringly large percentage of mass public shooters were young adults who were found to have been on a range of mood altering prescriptions. This particularly troubling, since such medications are known to have side affects that include suicidal and homicidal impulses, especially in teenagers and young adults.
More needs to be investigated regarding the drug issue, but the media prefers that the focus remain on "guns" - what kind of guns did the shooter use? Where did they get them? Interesting that drunk drivers kill infinitely more people each WEEK than all of the school shooters combined, yet no one asks, "where did he get the car? What kind of car was he driving?"
But all of this is beside the point. The fact is that NOTHING we do will guarantee that such deranged people will not be able to get ANY gun they want if they have the will to do so. Therefore, the real issue should be, when the next maniac shows up in a school or shopping mall (and they will), what should our policies be? And should those policies be based on pragmatism, or someone's "religion?"
And one or two armed security guards is not the answer - they are too easily identified and located. No, a potential killer must have the clear understanding that there are armed individuals on the premises, with no way of knowing WHO may be armed. Having multiple, discreetly armed defenders makes it more likely that a response will be more immediately forthcoming, and the record shows that ANY armed response is likely to result in the shooter retreating and/or committing suicide.
Another argument made against arming teachers and other staff is that they "aren't trained enough" to handle something as serious as an "active shooter" scenario. But this is a canard - the record clearly shows that when a shooter encounters ANY armed resistance, they invariably immediately retreat, and often commit suicide. Had an armed citizen merely fired a couple of pot-shots at the Aurora movie theater shooter, he would likely have fled. In the case of the Connecticut school incident, he would have most probably killed himself, as he did as soon as he did meet resistance. Unfortunately, it was too late for those who had already been murdered.
And having our precious little children hiding under desks, quivering with horror, hoping that the police will eventually arrive, is NOT something that we should be willing to tolerate once, let alone again and again. It is abundantly clear that the approach we have taken for decades simply doesn't work. So instead of refusing to protect our children in order to appease a group of anti-gun zealots, how about we finally admit that "gun free zones" have failed, then do the right thing, and guard our children with the same level of seriousness that we are willing to employ to guard our money?