Sandy Hook Is Proof Gun-Free Zones Don’T Work



The tragic murder of 20 innocent school children and seven adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. has, predictably, reignited the gun control debate. What happened is beyond understanding, beyond unconscionable, and the apparent impossibility of preventing this kind of monstrous tragedy leads people to reach for impossible solutions —like gun control. Just ban all guns, people cry, and these children will not have died in vain! We need to put every citizen under a doctor’s microscope to ensure they have no homicidal tendencies, people cry, and these children will not have died in vain!

To confirm the uselessness of gun control as a solution, it is only necessary to perform the following mental experiment: I ask those who argue for strict gun control to put themselves in the front office of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. as Adam Lanza bursts through the front door and starts firing. What are you going to do to stop him? Will you ask him to have a seat while you call 911? Will you tackle him, as courageous and heroic principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach tried to do, and who both died for their heroism? This is where you find out just what your gun control arguments are worth: Unarmed, what are you going to do to stop this murderer of innocent children?

Gun control is not going to stop a mass murderer. Never has and never will. If laws prohibiting murder will not stop a murderer, why would anyone expect laws against firearms to stop him?

Yet, there is a solution, and it has been proven to work: Palestinian terrorist organizations stopped using school massacres as a military tactic the moment the Israelis armed their teachers. Are the terrorists afraid of getting killed? Of course not; they blow themselves up with suicide bombs all the time. No, what they fear is being killed without accomplishing their mission. Maniacs who want to take out their rage on innocents have the same problem.

We have the right to keep and bear arms to stop murders; that’s what firearms are for. No civilian massacre has ever been committed or even attempted where the intended victims were armed. Period. Full stop. End of story. Training school personnel to arms and getting them armed is the only prevention and it works just about 100 percent of the time.

Donald L. Cline


Dan Haapala 4 years ago

Donalds assesment is right on the mark and the subject is sprouting up like a geyser in Yellowstone park. The next argument you hear; However, will be from liberal left wing unionized teachers who are opposed to violence, won't carry guns, want someone else to fix it and want all guns to go away. If I'm wrong I'll apologize to all the liberal left wing teachers. Dan Haapala.


Donald Cline 4 years ago

It's not true of all teachers, Dan, but for the most part, you are right. There are examples of teachers who have courage to take responsibility for their students. On October 1st, 1997 Luke Woodham, student at Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi, bludgeoned his mother to death in his home and then proceeded to Pearl High school, where he murdered two students and injured seven more. Joel Myrick, the school principal, retrieved a .45ACP pistol from his truck (parked a block away because of idiotic laws!) and detained Woodham at gunpoint until the police arrived. Had it not been for those idiotic gun laws, Myrick might have been able to stop Woodham before innocent children were killed and maimed.

The real problem we have to deal with is this insane idea that guns don't belong in civilized society. Guns are what preserve civilized socieity, and the more we fail to recognize that fact the farther we move from anything remotely resembling "civilized."

I have come to realize there is another factor involved: Gun control activism is a form of cowardice. It is born of a terror at the prospect of ever having to face evil and deal with it at the threat of one's own life. People who oppose the right to keep and bear arms subconsciously believe, if they are successful, they will never have to face that evil, and will never have their courage (or lack thereof) tested. They are wrong: If any person is ever murdered or maimed in their presence when they have failed to take the necessary steps to prevent it -- training and arms and action at the scene -- they will figuratively live with the word COWARD! in scarlet letters across their forehead for the rest of their lives.


Donald Cline 4 years ago

Addendum: I'm not quite as hard-nosed about it as the last paragraph of the previous comment might indicate. There are people who just don't have it in them to deal with physical conflict, especially conflict of a life and death nature. But many of these folks have courage in other areas and make contributions to society of great value. What we might call cowardice in these folks can be forgiven, as long as they don't shoot their mouths off trying to disarm those of us who are keeping them safe. It is the sheeple versus sheepdog dynamic. Sheeple have value to society, and sheepdogs have a duty to keep them safe. Sheeple have a duty to let sheepdogs do their duty.


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.