Will More Gun Control Really Make Us Safer?

by Jack Keaton

Friday, December 14, 2012. Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, CT. Approximately 9:30 AM.

A mentally unstable man named Adam Lanza forces his way into a supposedly “safe” elementary school, and with disturbing efficiency, executes 20 children and 6 adults with high powered firearms.

It was a tragic event beyond imagination. The massacre, which claimed the lives of 26 people, was beyond disturbing. But the fact that innocent children were specifically targeted by this deranged lunatic made it seem even worse. Despite the much lower loss of life, it rivaled the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 for the emotional impact that it has had on this country.

And based on reports of the amount of ammunition that Adam Lanza had in his possession,  this crime of unspeakable horror could have been much worse.

And as a negative side effect, the disgusting murderous rampage that happened at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, CT has given the President and his cronies more fuel to keep pushing their Liberal Agenda on Gun Control. And the speed in which the current Administration has politicized this tragic event is disgusting.

The socialist liberals in this country will have you believe that incredibly strict gun control – even so far as reversing the second amendment and taking the guns right out of lawful owners’ houses – would somehow make this country safer.

But the opposite is actually true. In fact, with a more positive popular opinion on gun ownership and carrying weapons, the body count at Sandy Hook Elementary could have been much lower.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but before you dismiss the idea out of hand, allow me to explain.

Compare and contrast the events in Newtown, CT with the mall shooting in Oregon earlier that same week, in which 2 innocent people were murdered. You may or may not have even heard about this incident, because it didn’t get nearly the media play as Sandy Hook.

But in the case of the Oregon mall shooting, there was one key difference – the murderer was confronted by an armed citizen…and after that moment, the only other person to die was the killer.

You may have heard about the mall shooting in Oregon, but you most likely have not heard about the armed civilian hero that stopped further killing. (Why?  Because that would not benefit the Mass Murdia’s liberal agenda. But I digress.)

So what is the difference in these two stories, besides the specific targeting of children?  There were plenty of targets (people) packed into enclosed areas (mall and school).

Both perpetrators had planned for maximum casualties, with plenty of ammunition – enough to kill a hundred people.

So why was one incident so tragic, and the other, while still tragic, much less so?

The answer is simple:  In Oregon, there was a person who had at his disposal his own legal firearm, of which he was trained to use, and which he was able to use to deter the attacker. And in Newtown, CT, there wasn’t.  It is as simple as that. There was NO ONE at the school that was equipped to slow down the attacker. His murderous rampage was unimpeded for a full 10+ minutes until the police finally arrived.

Looking at all the evidence, it is actually amazing that only 26 people lost their lives.  He had enough ammo and weaponry to kill every living, breathing person in the school. As bad as it was, it could have been much, much worse.

Imagine for just one moment how different the outcome might have been if just ONE adult in that school had been equipped with and trained in the use of a firearm.  What if within 1 minute of the intruder entering the school, an adult could have intervened who actually had the ability to stop him and protect the children?

Consider the story of the heroic principal at Sandy Hook Elementary. She was there and in position to end the killing spree. Showing amazing courage and armed with nothing with her bare hands, she attacked the killer, and gave her very life trying to stop him. She is a true hero, and a martyr. But she wasn’t properly equipped to stop the killing spree, and it potentially cost her her life.

And now imagine what might have happened in Oregon if it had been illegal for that heroic citizen to carry a sidearm. How many more innocent people might have died if he had not been there to intervene?

Right now, the public is upset, and they are looking for answers and for “something to be done”. The Liberals gun-haters are all too ready to give them answers, and are ecstatic about this great opportunity that they have to push through stricter gun control.

These people HATE the second amendment. They want to strip law-abiding citizens like you and me of our legally purchased and registered firearms, leaving us unable to adequately protect ourselves from those that mean us harm, all under the guise of “making us safe”.  We as citizens need to see through their smoke and mirrors and consider what the truly proper response is to these tragedies.

The truth is, increased gun control will NOT take guns away from the criminals. Criminals, by very definition, don’t care about laws, and therefore will ignore even the strictest of gun control measures. All that universal gun control or gun bans will accomplish is take away our ability to protect ourselves and fight back against the growing criminal element.

With this in mind, what is the proper response to the terrible events at Sandy Hook? What should we as citizens be DEMANDING of our elected representatives?

The proper response is NOT to increase gun control, thereby taking away firearms from law abiding citizens, rendering them unable to protect themselves and their families against the very worst of criminals.

The correct response to this most recent tragedy is to increase the protection in the school.

Some schools already have armed guards in the facility.  That is an ideal solution, but it may not be feasible in all circumstances, especially in rural or smaller schools where budgets are already razor thin.

Because it’s not feasible to provide every school in this country with an armed guard, the next best thing is to equip adults who are already in the school with the means and training to keep our children safe, INCLUDING allowing…nay, EXPECTING them to carry and be familiar with the use of legal protective firearms.

Instead of taking guns away from law-abiding citizens so that our kids can be “safe” at school, let’s train the adults who we trust to look after our children for 6+ hours a day to actually protect them too.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I would feel much better about my child’s safety if I knew that there was someone in his school that was trained and equipped to protect him and his classmates from psychopaths like Adam Lantz.

I’m not naive. I’m sure the idea of arming school personnel would be met with a TON of resistance.  As a parent, I can understand those who would be uneasy about the idea of their children shut into classrooms with armed teachers. Fine. Don’t arm the teachers.

Arm the principals and their assistants. Then there would be two or maybe three people per school who have the training and the firepower to stop or at least deter armed assailants. And that might just be enough to prevent future massacres in our schools.

Had the principal or another school administrator at Sandy Hook been properly trained and equipped with a firearm, their would certainly have been fewer innocent children killed.

Would some people still have died?  Unfortunately, probably so. But how many LESS would we be mourning today?

If I was the parent of one of the children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary, that is the question that would haunt me forever.

Just something to think about.

Jack Keaton