School Shootings? Try This

On February 17 The Signal published a column by Katie Hill, a local Dem/socialist political hopeful, entitled “A call for action”. In it she wrote the following:

“The vast majority of Americans agree that measures like universal background checks, waiting periods, and disqualifying terrorists, domestic abusers and those in mental health crisis from buying weapons are all simple solutions we can take action on — TODAY — that would save lives from being lost tomorrow.”

Yes, well, all of those things are already in place, so what is she really advocating?

Or is this just one more example of a member of the ethically and morally bankrupt Dem/socialist party cynically mining a tragedy for cheap political points?

Nikolas Cruz, the Parkland shooter, bought his guns legally, meaning he was subjected to all the background checks required by law, both by Florida ( and by the feds. He passed.

Real life isn’t the movie “Minority Report” wherein the cops can predict who’s going to commit a crime and then swoop in and arrest them ahead of time, before they commit the crime. Further, until someone actually does something that disqualifies them from gun ownership — and there’s a long list of such actions — they can’t be prevented from owning a gun just on the mere speculation that they might do something.

Ms. Hill wants to “take action”? Well how about taking action on some things that might actually help address the problem? The first step is to stop making schools “gun-free zones”. You might as well put up a sign that says “target-rich environment”. You’re actually advertising the fact that a school is what’s known as a “soft target”, meaning it’s defenseless.

Then consider hiring people capable of putting up an on-scene immediate response to a shooter, and let them be armed with concealed weapons. No matter how fast the local cops can react, it still takes them time to get there. When seconds count, they’re only minutes away. Consider hiring retired people with military experience. They work cheap — like the crossing guards at intersections — and they know how to respond to the sound of the guns.

Further, once potential bad guys know that they won’t be hitting a soft target anymore, I suspect this problem will pretty much evaporate. If nothing else, when one of these nut jobs is busy trying to defend himself from someone shooting back at him, he’s not using his time to shoot innocent kids.

Those are some suggestions for how we can “take action” and actually make an impact, rather than just trying to score political points based on emotion and hysteria. How about it, Ms. Hill?



©Brian Baker 2018


(Published 20 Feb 2018 on my blog and in my local newspaper, The Signal)

14 comments on “School Shootings? Try This

  1. Kathy says:

    What a breath of fresh air it would be to actually see a solution come from this, rather than the same old tired arguments from the Dems for more gun control and the same old defenses from the Rs.

    I’m with you – get rid of the gun-free zones, hire security guards and add the same security measures that are used in courthouses and most all the federal buildings. Reallocate some of the money in that bloated federal budget to pay for it and make our kids safe. Btw, I’m seeing quite a few CC instructors volunteer to train teachers free of charge.

    I’m hopeful that our illustrious president, who isn’t as prone to think like a politician, will come up with something along this line, but right now I’m not seeing it. He needs to take the lead on this, because if we don’t do something concrete, we’ll be having this same discussion again in the near future.

    • BrianR says:

      I hear ya, Kathy, but in my opinion, we’ll be having this same discussion over and over and over again until the gun-haters can somehow make gun ownership illegal, no matter WHAT is or isn’t done now.

      That’s their ultimate goal, regardless of any of their lying denials to the contrary. They hate guns, period. All guns, any guns.

  2. Grey Neely says:

    Brian you could be correct with your statement, “until the gun-haters can somehow make gun ownership illegal”. However, that would start a second civil war with the “gun-haters” in the same position that France had in 1939. The civil war would be over in a few days with a whole lot of dead gun-haters and Democrat politicians.

    Retired military personnel, as you said, would be just the “ticket”. And some of us older farts might even enjoy getting in a gun-fight with some low-life creep who wants to shoot innocent children. (Of course the creep’s body might be so full of holes after the gunfight as to defy description.)

    The US might even want to look at some of Israel’s tactics for solving this problem.

    BTW, you wrote an excellent article. Has Ms. Hill responded?

    • BrianR says:

      “The civil war would be over in a few days with a whole lot of dead gun-haters and Democrat politicians.”

      And the down-side is…?


      Thanks for the kind words. Nah, she hasn’t responded, and she won’t. They never do.

  3. captbogus2 says:

    “Further, once potential bad guys know that they won’t be hitting a soft target anymore, I suspect this problem will pretty much evaporate.” You pretty much nailed it there. In Israel ALL schools are armed. There are NO school shootings in Israel.
    And all this, “Let’s get together and pass a law that…etc etc. What law is gong to be any more effective when there are no cops around than any other?

  4. garnet92 says:

    Great article, Brian. You made several good suggestions that ought to be considered by anyone who doesn’t already have an intractable political position. That’s the problem – gun control doesn’t have a Constitutional underpinning, it’s strictly a political position chosen by the left with the goal of taking more control of the masses.

    I not only agree with your stance on “gun-free” zones, I’ll raise you a bit. I think that ALL “gun-free” zones should be abolished. They serve no purpose except to assure that a bad guy with a gun can have his way with any unfortunate souls who are within that confined area.

    And, I’ve long touted the armed school personnel environment. Any teacher or other school employees who choose to carry, undergo training and secures a carry permit should be allowed to carry on school grounds (and everywhere else since I want all gun-free zones abolished). Retired military and law enforcement participants would be even better.

    In addition, there is no reason to treat schools like second-class citizens when it comes to hardening the facilities as well.

    In summary, hardening the facilities, abolishing the gun-free designation and supporting concealed carry for those who choose to do so will, I’ll bet eliminate school shootings.

    As you say, schools should NEVER be a “soft” target.

    • BrianR says:

      Thanks, Garnet.

      I actually agree with every single thing you wrote, but as my newspaper column was responding to the column by one of our local political toads, I confined myself to the specific issues she’d raised.

  5. CW says:

    Great letter, Brian.

    Ms. Hill forgot to add the brilliant revelation that we should make murder illegal. Oh wait……

    Maybe I missed it but I have yet to see anyone from the Left voicing outrage about all of the missed opportunities to put the spotlight on Nicholas Cruz before he did what he did. They seem far more interested in scoring political points for the anti-gun side than doing anything constructive that would actually matter while preserving the rights of the law-abiding. Typical.

    I saw today that someone associated with Nicholas Cruz had called the FBI and actually told them almost verbatim that they thought he could go off and be a school shooter in a compelling call that would have raised the hair on the necks of anyone who actually gave a damn about something other than a paycheck. Why are we not hauling this braindead FBI operator and their supervisor before congress (and the nation) to answer for their costly failures? Only that kind of accountability will make any difference in the end.

    • BrianR says:

      Thanks, CW.

      Interestingly enough, I submitted a follow-up today, which I’ll post if published. A couple of the local lefties were all outraged that I took Ms. Hill to task and criticized their party as being “ethically and morally bankrupt”, and their letters were published subsequent to my column.

      Needless to say, I had to set them straight, and in my response discuss the more recent developments, particularly the malfeasance of the local cops.

      Stay tuned!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s