After the shooting in Texas the other day, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick pointed out the obvious.
If there was only one entrance to the school, the shooter would have been stopped.
This has been a common means of controlling who enters secured buildings for years. For example, if you go to a courthouse or a Federal building – hell even some office buildings — there is only one public entrance.
Controlling the point of entry is an excellent way to harden soft targets.
This is a bad, bad idea. getting out of a school is just as important as getting in. And it's not just about guns. A fire, for instance, would be a horrifying nightmare if there was only one entrance/exit https://t.co/ui2UBKttWc
— Sam Stein (@samstein) May 18, 2018
A single entrance doesn’t mean a single exit.
Has Sam Stein never seen fire exits before?
Well, before you assume that this reporter is retarded, let me assure you, he’s not.
He knows damn well that there is a difference between limiting entry into a building and allowing for emergency exits in case of fire.
But here’s what these guys are doing.
They’re trying to pinch off any possible avenue that would harden soft targets so that the only avenue we can visit is banning guns.
And if that means keeping soft targets soft, they’re good with that.
If soft targets are hardened – for example, if schools are as difficult to enter as a courthouse – the anti-gun Left will lose their most emotionally evocative argument for gun control.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think these people are ghouls who want students gunned down.
But I do think they see a benefit in keeping public schools soft targets.
If we harden school security, it will make schools safer.
And once schools are no longer soft targets, the most emotionally evocative case for gun control is neutered.
Those anti-gun Lefts get a lot of mileage out of howling and rending their garments over “the children.”
But hardening school security will actually do something to protect “the children.”
Just not the “something” the anti-gun Left wants.
Soft targets help advance the narrative that guns should not be in the hands of citizens.
Solving the problem of school safety isn’t the goal here.
The goal – the first principle of the Left – is disarming the citizenry.
When I lived in Chicago in the 1990s, a homeless man asked me for money one day as I was leaving the Howard Street red line station for home. He told me he needed to get on the red line and go downtown. But he didn’t have the money. So I reached into my pocket and gave him a CTA token.
He stared down at the dime-sized token resting in the palm of his hand in disappointment. Then he shook his head and said this wouldn’t help him. I told him, “You need to get on the red line, that token will get you on the red line.”
I solved the problem for him. But that wasn’t really the problem was it? Instead, I took away his only angle to get cash.
That’s what the anti-gun Left is like.
They don’t want the problem of school safety solved. Because that isn’t their goal. Their goal is gun control.
And if we harden soft targets through — let’s just call it “common sense security controls” – the anti-gun Left loses their best angle to get guns banned.
It’s why they don’t want to consider arming teachers, having a single-entry check-in, or armed guards.
Those are actual solutions to the problem of schools being a soft target.
And with children safe, the anti-gun Left will be effectively disarmed of their most potent weapon against the Second Amendment.
In the meantime, they are perfectly happy keeping schools soft targets.
Because they don’t really care about children’s safety.
That’s never what this has been about.
While we’re on the subject, David Cole penned one hell of a good column back in February titled Gates ‘n’ Guns in the Ghetto over at Taki’s Magazine.
He recounts his time attending a high school in inner city Los Angeles during the gang and crack epidemic of the eighties.
Yet I don’t have a single story to tell about on-campus violence. Not one. No on-campus shootings, stabbings, or gang fights. Why? Because the campuses of my junior high and high school were always on lockdown. There were only a few designated entry and exit points, and armed security officers stood at both. Everything else was gated up, chained up, and sealed up.
“Back then,” he writes, “gates and guns were not just unobtrusive, but welcome.”
And though the column is several months old, it is still well worth the read.
I am very unwell. And though I’m trying my best to keep up with posting, it hasn’t been easy over the last week. If you are a praying sort, I covet your prayers. This has been an awful Lupus week for me. And though I began to feel better on Thursday, it was short-lived. At this point, I have no idea how much more of this I’m going to have to endure.
Hit the Tip Jar!
Every dollar makes a difference! Hit the DONATE button in the side bar. Or, set up a recurring monthly contribution by choosing SUBSCRIBE. If you cannot afford to contribute, please whitelist PatriotRetort.com in your ad-blocker. Ads help pay for this site. And, as a promise to you, the ads are not obnoxious or overbearing and will never interfere with your enjoyment of PatriotRetort.com.