Via PawPaw's House, I learned of a letter in the Boston Globe that simply flabberghasts me. I'm going to quote a few paragraphs from it (printed in italics), and respond to each in turn.
Current school security procedures lock down school populations in the event of armed assault. Some advocate abandoning this practice as it holds everyone in place, allowing a shooter easily to find victims.
An alternative to lockdown is immediate exodus via announcement. Although this removes potential hostages and makes it nearly impossible for the shooter to acquire preselected targets, it unfairly rewards resourceful children who move to safety off-site more shrewdly and efficiently than others.
Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful. A level barrel is fair to all fish.
Can the writer be serious??? Does he truly intend to condemn more kids to die just because he wants to limit 'resourceful children' to the speed of response of those who are less 'resourceful'? There's nothing 'fair' about telling resourceful children that they have to run an increased risk of death! As for a 'level barrel' . . . words fail me.
Some propose overturning laws that made schools gun-free zones even for teachers who may be licensed to securely carry concealed firearms elsewhere. They argue that barring licensed-carry only ensures a defenseless, target-rich environment.
But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.
So the writer's ideology is more important to him than the life of his own child? Sir, you're not fit to be a parent. I can only feel profoundly sorry for any child unfortunate enough to be born to you. Hopefully, he or she will survive your influence and won't need your 'protection'.
Go read the whole letter for yourself. It's mind-boggling!
Grrrr . . .
Peter
8 comments:
On OpenCarry.org, they seem to have come to the conclusion that this letter was satire, exposing the leftist anti-gun viewpoint by taking it to the (il)logical extreme.
After reading it several times, I can understand this conclusion.
I reckon it's satire, myself.
I certainly hope it's satire, but I suspect it will show up by this afternoon somewhere being praised as a model of good thinking.
LittleRed1
Like the commenters above,I think, it's satire but one can't be certain.I suspect we've had our chains pulled, if for no other reason than the fish in the barrel reference. Have to admit he had me going for a bit.
Keep up the good work peter, i'm looking forward to my daily visits in the coming year.
Joe
Ugh. I hate the lockdown idea. The idea that somehow huddling together in the dark and hoping the monster doesn't notice you smacks of a neanderthal in a cave whimpering and moaning because there's a lion outside.
At my college the instructors were required to keep the door locked so that it would be quicker to huddle in the dark.
As for "leveling the playing field" so that the less resourceful students wouldn't be at a disadvantage... FFS they have fire drills. Run shooter drills, figure out who your resourceful students are and put them in charge of groups. It won't be orderly, and it won't be pretty, but it will up everyone's chances of survival.
The problem with that, though, is that it relies on teaching the students to think for themselves, and that is a cardinal sin in the school system and higher education.
LittleRed1:
And that is precisely why it made it into the LTE section in the first place. Some idiot editor saw it, and agreed 150 billion percent, and printed it without a second (or perhaps a first) thought.
It was written to mock the sheeple attitude, and it does it almost too well.
My brother worked for Honeywell when he first graudated from college. Morale on that job was horribly low, and Honeywell was determined to find out why when they were such a wonderful comapany and did everything right (that was the attitude they presented to their employees who dared to complain).
My brother, a master at satire, answered a questionaire that had been passed around with such tongue-in-cheek humor that it never occurred to those who administered it that he was pulling their collective leg.
In the next "newsletter" that went out, several of his answers were used as examples for the employees as the kind of attitude and "company first, (even though we suck and don't pay you half what you could get elsewhere)" mentality that they expected employees to have.
My brother left shortly after, and is happily employed elsewhere. He always described Honeywell as the "fast-food, burger flipping employment" of his industry. It's the required sucky first job, so that you can move on and realize that no matter how bad your current job is, at least it isn't Honeywell.
Anyway, my point was, I don't doubt for a second that some of the leftist would-be-shepherds would agree wholeheartedly with the letter. And it makes them look all the more like the idiots they are.
I agree that this is very clever satire. Well crafted to entice gun-haters and then to make them see the folly and immorality of their belief. Instead of condemning it, spread it.
Is it too much to hope that an association of gun-hating parents and school teachers can be formed that will promote the sacrifice of children to their "god" of gun-hatred and political correctness?
Sadly, the information I have indicates the schoolteacher author is as serious as a shotgun at a midnight wedding.
That is what intensive propaganda since birth will do.
Stranger
Post a Comment