Here is yet another reason why we don’t allow people to serve as lawmakers until they are at least 25 (and one hopes, have taken Logic 101 class).
One of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting survivors who has become a darling of the anti-gun left tried to refute opponents who pointed out that in the recent Maryland school shooting, a massacre was prevented because an armed officer was on the scene and responded in less than a minute. This was her tweet, which went viral among other people whom I assume also have never taken a logic class:
“The Great Mills school resource officer stopped the shooter but a ‘good guy with a gun’ is NOT the answer. Armed citizens rarely successfully intervene to stop an active shooter - an FBI study of 160 incidents found that only 1 was stopped by someone with a valid firearms permit.”
Okay…so what were the parameters of that study? Did it take into account that most such attackers deliberately target “gun-free zones” (like your school, a situation that you are campaigning to impose nationwide), and therefore, the likelihood of an armed citizen being anywhere nearby was virtually nil? That’s what is known as a “self-selecting sample.” Did this study take into account the thousands of times a day that crimes are prevented by citizens who merely show a gun, or by the simple knowledge of the possible presence of a “good guy with a gun?” If it was a study of mass shootings, then incidents of good guys with guns being close by and stopping them would be extremely rare on the list because they wouldn’t have become mass shootings to begin with (again, see the Maryland school).
I’m sorry if it sounds as if I’m talking down to this young woman, which is not my intention, even if it seems to be the intention of some of these students to talk down to their elders who have been dealing with this problem and all the thorny issues surrounding it for quite a few more decades than she and her classmates have been on Earth. I am just as furious as she is that she and other students who have been targeted by deranged shooters were not properly protected.
And I agree that armed guards cannot by themselves prevent every violent incident (while the Maryland shooting was one of the very rare cases where someone launched an assault despite knowing he might meet armed resistance, and the guard did prevent him from racking up multiple victims, tragically, the teenage girl he critically injured has now died).
But what failed to protect the vast majority of school shooting victims wasn’t the Second Amendment or the NRA or armed citizens. It was all the layers of government that failed to do their jobs; all the ineffective, poorly-enforced laws that punish only the law-abiding (and to which some people want to add more); and all the local and state officials who put their ill-informed personal politics about guns ahead of their responsibility to protect their young charges.
Now, as the doting media coverage of today’s big anti-gun march plays in the background, let’s add to the list of those failing our children the well-funded anti-gun groups that are trying to exploit the naiveté of traumatized teenagers to play on our emotions and rewrite our laws and the Bill of Rights to their specifications and advance their own political careers and agendas -- even if the end result for our kids is disarming the law-abiding who might actually protect them and continuing the policy of campuses being unprotected sitting duck zones.
Here’s another question to prepare all those who approvingly retweeted this for their first Logic 101 class: Why do you think all of the political leaders and wealthy liberal celebrities who are promoting and funding this Astroturf children’s crusade to keep armed guards out of our schools always work and travel surrounded by armed guards?
PLEASE LEAVE ME A COMMENT BELOW. I READ THEM!