Pearls of Wisdom

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA's poor excuse for an executive vice president. He is absolutely wrong because that assumes the “good guy” is a better shot. In truth, the only way to stop a “bad guy with a gun” is “a good guy with a bazooka”.  

Friday, March 8, 2013 was assuredly a happy day for the NRA. South Dakota became the 1st State of the Union to enact a law specifically authorizing school employees to carry guns. The NRA had proposed that armed security officers be placed in every school, but that simply isn’t in the budget. Note: there are already a few school districts nationally where, under current law, teachers may have handguns. Texas began allowing it in 2008 (no surprise there).

Before we all celebrate this “avante–garde” approach to school safety, there are two recent incidents which may want us to take a second look: (1) East Texas: a maintenance worker shot himself in the foot during safety training two weeks ago; (2) a NY State police officer, assigned to patrol a high school, inadvertently fired his gun in the hallway during school hours. www. nytimes.com 3/9/13

There was another NY Times article that puts perspective on this new law.  It described the current dialogue on the use of drones overseas on “American citizens” that are alleged terrorists. The following are several schools of thought on this issue:  

(1) If an American citizen is a terrorist, why not revoke his citizenship? Then when we blow him up with a drone, we will not have blown up an “American citizen”.

(2) If Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen on the “kill list” were not killed by a drone strike and was later responsible for a specific terrorist act against Americans, how would American’s feel about killing him with a drone strike at that time?  

(3) Apparently, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), believes that if our government would use a drone on a U.S. citizen overseas, they may decide to use one on American soil for the same purpose. Personally, I believe that to be a radical, unrealistic extrapolation, but then we are talking about Rand Paul! But if you do believe he is correct, is ceasing all drone strikes the correct solution?

(4) Our drone strikes kill innocent victims along with the target, i.e. collateral damage. Question: Suppose we did not use the drone to kill Anwar al-Awlaki and instead chose to send in a team of Navy Seals to capture or kill him. And in the process, we lost thirty soldiers. Are those American lives worth less than the innocents killed in the drone strike? 

===============================================================

Since we are in the business of extrapolation, let’s now go back to the issue of armed teachers in schools. We live in fear, so we overreact and listen to ”NRA wisdom," certainly an oxymoron if there ever was one. How far do we go?

A Fort Lee resident, a good friend, but unfortunately a gun aficionado, recently told me that he would go out and buy an AR-15 before the government banned them. His logic was that he needed to be able to protect his family from our government, based on the 2nd amendment to the Constitution and the NRA’s perverted interpretation of it. 

So a new question now arises. By my friend’s logic, we need to protect ourselves from our terribly corrupt government (no argument there). Since the real fear is that the government will send drones to our homes to kill us if we are a suspected terrorist, is it not reasonable for every home to be armed with “heat-seeking missiles” to shoot the drones out of the sky before we are destroyed?

=============================================================== 

David Cross, an author and stand-up comic, speculated on “Real Life with Bill Maher” that it might be better to just arm the children in schools. In the event of a terrorist attack, they could fend off the terrorist with a barrage of 22-caliber rifle shots. I might also encourage slingshots and bows and arrows for the younger children.    

Note: A 16 year old kid, Kimani Gray, was shot by the police this week because he was carrying a gun. If he had left his house with a basketball instead, he might still be alive. 

===============================================================

There is no doubt that we live in a violent society. I cannot remember a period in my lifetime where the U.S. has not been at war with some entity, from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan.  From the Kent State massacre to the Newtown massacre, irrational violence has dominated our society. So the NRA rides the wave of fear by encouraging every citizen to own a gun and every school to have an armed sentry. Does anyone else have visions of clones of the giant robot, Klaatu, patrolling the hallways of our elementary schools, disintegrating intruders with laser beams? “Live in Fear or Die Hard” will be the new American motto.  Bruce Willis’ picture will replace Uncle Sam’s. More guns are not the answer, they never were. The NRA has no answers, just generous donations from gun company profits. 

As much as anyone else, I want our children to be safe. But weapons in schools are not a viable solution. I may stand alone, but I want our educational dollars to go toward new books, new teachers, new computers, and new lab equipment. I want our children to have a bright future, one filled with hope and promise. And I want the NRA to stay out of our schools.