Using NRA logic, let's arm kindergarteners
The National Rifle Association sensibly suggests that all schools should be protected by armed guards. This is just common sense. But if the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun, wouldn’t it be better to have dozens of good guys with guns. The NRA proposals don’t go nearly far enough. We need more than one or two armed guards per school! Most schools have multiple points of entry. Students move around. At any time, some are in the gym, some in the cafeteria, and some on the playground. One guard cannot possibly protect them all.
Some state legislators have proposed that all teachers be armed. This is a step in the right direction. But teachers cannot be everywhere. In many schools, there is only one teacher for every thirty or forty children. I don’t like those odds.
The only sensible way to protect our children is to require every student to carry a semi-automatic handgun at all times. Starting in kindergarten.
There is evidence that this would be effective. In Kennesaw, Georgia, every head of household is required to own a weapon. Since the law was passed, the crime rate dropped. (True, it dropped from way above the national average to about average, but it would surely have dropped further if every citizen, not just every head of household, had been required to carry a weapon at all times.)
Some might object that kindergarteners are too young to use weapons safely and responsibly. The evidence suggests the opposite. Fewer the 1% of murders are committed by 5 year olds.
Schools should be required to teach five year olds to use Glocks and Berettas responsibly. After all, they’re going to need them when they grow up. Responsible handgun use is more useful than learning about myths like evolution or global warming.
But the most powerful argument for arming our five year olds is this: they are armed anyway. Every year, more than 500 children in the United States fatally shoot themselves with guns that they obtain in their own homes every year. Current policies don’t prevent five year olds from getting guns. They just insure that only the criminal five year olds get them. What sense does that make? Five year olds are citizens, too. They have a constitutional right to protect themselves. The dream of a gun-free kindergarten, like the dream of gun-free zones anywhere, is a dangerous liberal fantasy.
If we want to protect our children, we need to face facts. Misguided gun control laws put our precious children at risk. We can do something about this. Write to Congress today. A well-armed kindergarten is the only safe kindergarten.
John Lantos is a pediatrician and professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri - Kansas City. The opinions in this essay are his own.
George Hunsucker
Northland
4 months, 3 weeks agodrum, drum, drum, we want your guns…..
George Hunsucker
Northland
4 months, 3 weeks agoJust do as I say, not as I do….
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service
Zero does not send his children to government schools, does he? Oh, that’s right, he’s “special”….
Matt Henry
4 months, 3 weeks agoMy guess is this “author” is crying into his non-fat double-latte at the faculty lounge that these awful conservatives won’t have a “real conversation” on this topic.
I have to be honest here; That the Star would print this sophomoric, insulting, self-indulgent tripe that passes for satire or sarcasm or whatever is the reason I am inclined to stay on the outside of their pay wall. I can tolerate this childish lack of professionalism for free, but I won’t be paying for it. And I don’t even own a gun.
I know the “opinions in the essay” are the author’s own, but that doesn’t mean he has the right to have it published. Quit proving to us on a regular basis that you have no
Matt Henry
4 months, 3 weeks agostandard of professionalism in the pursuit of your agenda.
Phil Cardarella
4 months, 3 weeks agoOne of the problems with the NRA leadership is that they truly defy parody. They are so outrageous that it is REALLY hard to make up stuff more absurd than their actual policies.
George Hunsucker
Northland
4 months, 3 weeks agoyea phil, kind of like you libs caring soooooooooooooooooo much for the poor that you make millions more with your policies….
Of course, they do provide you libs with jobs…
Mark Hastert
4 months, 3 weeks agoThis is not about going hunting with your dad or shooting traps or any kind other of healthy sport. This is about a perverse obsession, where military style assault weapons are the fetish and the NRA is the pimp.
To those who claim the constitution should never be reinterpreted by modern courts I’ll say this. Your right to bear arms is limited to the arms the framers of the constitution had in mind, muskets and flintlock rifles, enjoy!
Matt Henry
4 months, 3 weeks agoOne look at this post (and many of the comments that follow) is all the proof you need that very few are actually seeking ways to solve this problem. Most are simply seeking to demonize and dehumanize the other side, almost guaranteeing that we will all dig in our heels. An embarrassment. Can anyone really argue that this post takes even the smallest step TOWARD finding a solution, or does it only make us hate each other more?
We need to quit being children about this.
George Harris
Kansas City
4 months, 3 weeks agoI don’t know whether Dr. Lantos drinks non-fat double latte’s or not, but what does it matter. Doctors don’t go into pediatrics because they want to make millions. I suggest that Dr. Lantos is genuinely angry that children can be slaughtered as they were in Connecticut, and his satire has a bite to it because of this. Further, as a professor at the UMKC medical school, he likely sees a bunch of low income kids in the clinics, many of whom are abused, many directly affected by gun violence by loss of a parent or sibling or relative. It’s hard to imagine anything that would make the NRA “dig in its heels” more than it’s doing already. I don’t think there’s any conversation that is going to convince staunch NRA advocates that there should be change. The task now is to mobilize people who recognize a terrible problem and get them to speak up to their legislators. That’s the only way change is going to occur. Then let the courts rule whether the new laws are or are not constitutional.
Mark Hastert
4 months, 3 weeks agoThis is a complicated matter without any easy solution. It’s about the way we think as much as what we do. There aren’t enough “good guys with guns” keep this from happening, in schools, restaurants, on the streets, to children, firemen, police, teachers…. It’s about how many and what kinds of weapons are accessible, how we’ve come to have this perverse obsession, and how we’ve fail to deal with disturbed and criminal minds. It’s taken us decades, maybe centuries to tie this Gordian knot. It’s going to be hard and take time to undo it but that’s no excuse for not starting.
JR Beillenhouser
4 months, 3 weeks agoMark, you forget to add your comment “To those who claim the constitution should never be reinterpreted by modern courts I’ll say this. Your right to bear arms is limited to the arms the framers of the constitution had in mind, muskets and flintlock rifles, enjoy!” again, like you have on 10 other threads. You sure like to repeat yourself. You’re totally off base as usual, but that really doesn’t matter now does it.
Mark Hastert
4 months, 3 weeks ago“You’re totally off base as usual,”
….yeah, I do that before I steal 2nd…
I don’t need to repeat my comment you’ve done it fr me. You’re helping me to “trend”
Matt Henry
4 months, 3 weeks agoIf Dr. Lantos is “genuinely angry” then why did he write a cartoon about it? Are we trying to find common ground to solve problems or are we sending mortar fire into the other side’s camp? This was just that, a loony-toons belittling of the other side. How is that going to help solve the problem? It can only serve to drive the wedge in deeper.
Will it cause “NRA types” to entrench themselves further? Probably not. But are you really trying to convert them or are you seeking those in the middle? Don’t you think this type of nonsense and about the fifty times the Star has used the terms “gun nuts” can be helpful to those who can be swayed? Of course not. I tell you, I could support some common-sense changes but for the buffoonery and seething hatred on both sides. As it stands, I’m not inclined to want to budge one inch on gun rights in favor of those who belittle very real concerns about safety and protection in the real world with silly, hyperbolic logical leaps like this one.
Matt Henry
4 months, 3 weeks agoI am also constantly amazed at how often those who have never, ever had any interest in a strict interpretation of the constitution and bend it into origami to meet their desires (can you say Roe v Wade?; who here thinks James Madison was trying to entrench abortion rights into the Constitution?) all the sudden are hung up on militias, muskets and flintlocks as necessary to be able to “keep and bear” a weapon. All the sudden they are all Antonin Scalia. Give me a break.
Mark Hastert
4 months, 3 weeks ago“All the sudden they are all Antonin Scalia. Give me a break.”
…Hey I’m just trying to see things the conservative way! I’m bipartisan!
It’s just as ironic for those who claim to be strict originalists to assert that the constitution grants then a right to own a weapon that was clearly not in existence and unknown to the framers. I’m trying to lobby Tony, Clarence,& Sammy by appealing to their already deeply held convictions!
Matt Henry
4 months, 3 weeks agoAnd while I know your response here is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I find it ironic that some of the most vehement voices on the left regarding the nature of the 2nd Amendment and how access to the guns of today were “never what the framers intended” are the same voices who run around like beheaded chickens screaming about how the right to an abortion is in the Constitution and can’t be impeded. Or how the “separation of church and state” is in the Constitution and even a menorah or cross or the ten commandments posted on communal property is an affront to the very nature of that hallowed document. Give me a break. Everybody’s an originalist when it suits them.
I know this. When we play moronic games like this post and the snot-nosed, gotcha comments that have followed it (“flintlocks” hee hee hee, aren’t I smart?) we don’t come a darned bit closer to actually finding a solution to what ails us. You may “get” somebody with your gotcha game but tomorrow we still wake up in a culture that accepts violence and cultural degradation as easily as sugar on our breakfast cereal. Make no mistake, these things are just as harmful as high-capacity clips. Without them we would still be killing each other, only more softly.
Mark Robertson
4 months, 3 weeks agoPutting armed guards in schools is a good idea. A disastrous idea though would be to have the federal government do it like they have with the TSA. It should be done at the local level, where all education decisions should be made. Yes, some schools would likely have better guards and guns. Such is life. Thank you. Mark Robertson
Martha Gershun
4 months, 3 weeks agoSarcasm can often help us see the pointed absurdity of a closely-held position. Does anyone remember “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift? Like Swift’s essay, written in 1729 when failed economic policies caused many Irish children to literally starve to death, Dr. Lantos’ essay takes a hard, biting look at the pathetic reality of our national debate around gun control. OF COURSE guns don’t belong in our schools. OF COURSE….!
Mark Hastert
4 months, 3 weeks ago“You may “get” somebody with your gotcha game”..
Looks like I got you!
Listen I understand that there isn’t a single easy solution. My remarks are aimed at those who refuse to entertain the idea that we can have restrictions on certain types of weapons and still honor the framer’s intent. But it’s gonna that more than that. Our fascination with guns borders, for some at least, on perversion with guns as fetish. We need a national dialogue and initiatives on many fronts to curb this sort of random horror.
Mark Levin
4 months, 3 weeks agoI would like to know more about posting guards: does the single guard stand at the front door, or in the back of the school in the playground? How many children are we willing to allow to die before the guard arrives? Who will pay for the guards, given the state of our local, city and state budgets today? Will we allow taxes to rise immediately and in the future to afford the guards, or will the guards reduce the number of teachers? How does the guard prevent simply becoming the first person killed, since the murdered will know to find the guard first? I hope that someone can clear up these questions for me. I think Dr. Lantos is onto something here. The idea should be expanded. There’s nearly no cost, and the shooter will not be able to take out all of the children. At least one will get him.
Mark Levin
4 months, 3 weeks agoOops: typo. The word in the 7th line above should be “murderer” not “murdered.”
Matt Henry
4 months, 3 weeks agoOF COURSE guns don’t belong in schools! Say it twice and it is an even stronger statement! You know, I could produce a cute little “satire” that skewers the nice little lady hurling “Paradise Lost” at the head of a gunman while he is mowing down a bunch of first graders. Or perhaps a copy of Candide while she shouts “I’m still an optimist!” What a whimsical point that would make….
You know, even the “gun nuts” at the NRA would agree with “OF COURSE” guns don’t belong in schools. They really would, if you could ban them and then create some magical enforcement shield over schools like at Hogwarts. But welcome to reality-land. They sure found a way in last week, didn’t they?
A pooh-pooh dismissal of the notion of armed guards in schools, especially in the form of this insulting “satire” that hyperbolizes a reasonable position into the farcical, or by reducing the conversation to talk of the right to a muzzle-loader, we get no closer to a solution in a country where guns are here, are not going anywhere, and our citizens (especially the ones that we have broadcast to the world are the most vulnerable) are at risk. So we prattle on and on with satirical whimsy punctuated with a good, solid OF COURSE….
Matt Henry
4 months, 3 weeks agoMark - I know exactly what you are saying. What I am saying (and you may be in this camp, I’m not sure, but I know a boatload of people who are) is that you can turn your point completely on it’s head with other issues. Those who mock the “gun nuts” the loudest are the same ones who do the same thing with “liberal” issues. You know, the ones who refuse to entertain the idea that we can have restrictions on certain types of abortions and still honor the “right to privacy” that was so clearly the framer’s intent….
How long would it take me to find video of someone like Piers Morgan mocking those who want to restrict abortion rights as not being true to the Constitution? It’s funny how much that document means or doesn’t mean to some people, depending on the topic at hand. Sort of the very definition of hypocrite.
Kevin Flanigan
4 months, 2 weeks agoUMKC is the hotbed of socialism in the Kansas City area. Just ask the faculty, they’ll be happy to tell you so.