Shots Fired-How The Left's Battle Against Guns Is Endangering Our Kids

The latest school shooting has the left screaming for gun control, but their obsession with it puts kids at risk.

It happens every tragic shooting. Before the victims are even all triaged, the left is screaming for gun control, and accusing anyone who doesn't agree with them of having "blood on their hands". The most usual target for blame is the NRA, one of the few organizations supporting the 2nd amendment. Despite the shooter never being an NRA member, the NRA is blamed for promoting a "culture of guns" that leads to violence. Now, last I checked, the NRA did not run Hollywood, the largest promoter of a "culture of guns", but I digress.

The left is utterly obsessed with using human tragedy to push their anti gun agenda, and their favorite tragedy to use is children in school shootings. Their media starts the mantra instantaneously, sometimes before first responders are even on the scene to respond. Then for days and even weeks, the prevailing news narrative becomes "anyone who opposes gun control is endangering our children."

Any discussion of practical methods to secure the children is mocked and ridiculed for not "addressing the core problem - guns". Hiring uniform security guards, mocked as militarizing our schools. Hiring plain clothes security guards, mocked as costly and risky. Allowing teachers to carry arms, mocked as bringing guns in to schools. Security systems, mocked as ineffective. Basically EVERY SINGLE SOLUTION presented to the media over the past several shooting incidents has been shot down as silly because it did not seek to ban guns.

With the left's refusal to discuss any other solutions, our children are actually being LEFT AT RISK in order to push a political narrative that ONLY GUN CONTROL can protect our kids, rather than implement safety measures that could not only deter shooters but also increase the speed of first responders and reduce the ultimate loss of life and injury. In an active shooting, a few moments can make a difference between life and death, and the grim reality is that the sooner a shooter can be stopped, the less lives will be lost. While no loss of life is acceptable, an incident where one or two people are shot is quite different than one where 17 are killed, and all of us, if we could prevent as much loss of life as possible, would do so if we had the means.

Except, of course, the left. To them, putting in place technology or security, even with proven results, is stupid because it doesn't ban guns.

In the recent Parkland shooting, the officer who first responded waiting outside rather than go in and address the killer. His explaination was that he believed the shots to be coming from outside the building and his actions were "training protocol".

However, the technology exists now, and companies are ready to provide the service of shot detection technology, a system which can locate the exact location of a shot or shots fired, can immediately notify law enforcement to ensure fast response, and can provide actionable information to LEOs in real time to pinpoint a shooter's location and movement. This technology would have prevented the confusion in the officer at the Parkland shooting and could have saved many lives. With such an advanced society and such useful technology available, who would reject a discussion about using it to protect our schools? The left. It doesn't ban guns.

Additionally, many (if not all) of the mass shooters in recent years have had some indication of mental imbalance, and many have been on pharmaceuticals for mental issues, drugs which have STATED side effects of suicidal or homicidal tendencies. Though there is a common correlation with these shooters, mental health issues and medication, the left is adamant that the solution is NOT to discuss the effects of drugs (or the often curious way these drugs were approved, despite dangerous side effects) or discuss the need for mental health services. Neither of those solutions are banning guns.

And they had an utter meltdown over President Trump's suggestion that we allow trained and experienced firearms users who happen to also be teachers be able to carry their firearms in school to protect the kids. They even mocked Trump for saying he would have run into protect the kids even without a gun. Because the President's concern and instinct to protect the children doesn't ban any guns.

The left has even taken to defending the at best dysfucntional acts of Broward County first responders to the Parkland shooting. Pundits stated it was logical for our law enforcement to stay away from gunfire, why go protect the kids when all humans just want to 'stay away from big scary guns'. Pay no mind that the EXACT people we count on to run into danger ARE the police, and without their first line of defense, we are all sitting ducks, especially if the left has it's wish to disarm us.

So according to the left and because of the left, securing our schools, addressing mental health and holding our first responders to their call to protect has been ignored. Those solutions have been rejected and mocked. No actions have been taken to further secure our schools. No improvement in treatments have occured, no laws passed to address how we deal with red flags. In fact, our police have been literally trained to stand down. All because the left insists that the ONLY solution to gun violence is to criminalize legal gun use.

It's the LEFT who is endangering our kids with their myopic and politically charged narrative. How many children must die to feed the frenzied obsession of the left to remove our God given right to self defense? Even before we debate the quite clear intent of our Constitution to "not infringe" on the right to bear arms, cannot we not first ask the left why they don't want to make children safer, why they don't want to help their mental health, and why they are willing to let more children die in their quest to "get rid" of guns?

So I am done debating gun control with the liberals, the democrats...the left. Until they are willing to discuss SAFETY, HEALTH and PROPER FIRST RESPONSE PROTOCOL, I will consider them like they consider the NRA.

They, the gun-hating opportunistic left, have the blood of our children on their hands.

Comments
No. 1-10
SuzzanneMonk
SuzzanneMonk

Editor

The reality is that speech and religion can't directly kill, yet guns can and do. We happen to also control speech which is directly dangerous, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater. The right to self defense is a natural right, either from harm or tyranny. Guns are merely the tool used to operate that natural right of self defense.

Its why they got their own seperate amendment....

A_Chapman
A_Chapman

Editor

@SuzzanneMonk if individual gun ownership is indeed a Right, the same as free speech or freedom of religion, then how can we legally justify preventing people from exercising that right just because they have a health condition? Legally there are very limited conditions under which the rights of a citizen can be curtailed, and I don't think that simply having a mental health condition meets those conditions.

ThreePatriots
ThreePatriots

Editor

@Filibuster69 You do realize that there is absolutely NO due-process involved with being put on the No-Fly list right? I could call the FAA or any law enforcement agency today and tell them that @Filibuster69 said he was gonna hijack a large plane next time he flies and guess who’s name gets put on the no-fly list? Likewise, I have a friend whose last name is Smith. Guess what? His name was on the no fly list because of the common last name. No known terrorist connections, no criminal history, nothing, but he is on the no-fly list until he can prove it was wrong.
Secondly, someone with a history of domestic violence is barred from buying weapons by the laws currently on the books. If you go to a store to buy a gun, that’s an exact question that is asked on the NICS background check application. And you would be rejected from completing that purchase due to your domestic violence history.
Not sure where you are getting your facts, but you are being blatantly misled.

SuzzanneMonk
SuzzanneMonk

Editor

I appreciate your comment. But let me ask...is there a NON assault weapon? The liberals and their media use emotional terms that aren't accurate to the situation.
What about the school stabbing in Ohio? Should we discuss "assault knives"?

Last I checked, the NRA was not blocking ANY measures of increasing school security. The left keeps insisting the ONLY solution is gun banning, and thus blames the NRA, as you have. Why do you think an INDIRECT action, such as banning guns (and then praying criminals don't use illegal means to get banned guns) is the better solution to school safety than the DIRECT action of providing security AT THE SCHOOLS?

Filibuster69
Filibuster69

While I agree that NRA members are not committing the shooting, they do block legislation that could prevent some of these things from happening. When someone who is put on a no fly list because they are known to be radicalized, but they can still buy a gun, there is a problem. The idea that those who show the sights of possibly using guns to commit a crime like those with domestic violence history are still able to buy guns legally there is an issue. Now it is not all the NRA. The NRA is not the only problem, but they do play a part. And the one thing that is fact is that the majority of these shooting has been committed by legally purchased assault weapons.

Stories