Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Gun Free Zones Are Killing our Children!
A major failed experiment of Liberals across the country was to establish GUN FREE ZONES. The concept is simple enough, to ban all firearms within certain areas.
There was no better place to start this grand idea then in our schools. Perhaps a message could be sent to the children that guns are evil and only for killing! It's double duty, prohibiting and demonizing guns at the same time!
That GFZ concept is usually announced with bold red-letter signs. Additional efforts are taken such as placing minimum wage, poorly trained, guards with empty holsters and metal detectors at the doors of these insbreastution.
In theory the GFZs should work. The reality is that they only work to insure a homicidal maniac can quickly gain control of the Gun Free Zone and kill as many of our children as he pleases. The Gun free Zones and unarmed security guards are no match for a determined and armed buttailants or persons.
When the so-called Mob gave up control of the Las Vegas hotel-casinos,to new corporations, their gun-shy executives disarmed their security at first opportunity. The result was an, unprecedented surge in take over robberies and killings of tourists. The new Las Vegas executives soon learned their mistakes and re-armed their security staff members. The crime wave has all but ended.
The United States Postal Service used to have armed mailmen buttigned to security duties before the creation of the uniformed postal police. These mailmen were disarmed and not replaced by the postal police. The postal police were never in every post office like the armed mailmen. They are called the same way you'd order a pizza, but the pizza would arrive first.
Predictably the new term, "goin' postal" was born. Disgruntled and disturbed employees began to settle their scores right there without interference from anyone armed. The ceremony directors got an increase in business.
As corporations across the country soon adopted the empty holster, guard programs another new term was born, "workplace violence". The same thing happening in the postal facilities happened in factories everywhere.
When the GFZ programs fail the administrators then waste good money after bad on more metal detectors and empty holster guards. The gun-hating administrators refuse to admit the failure of their experiment. They just can't seem to learn the lesson that guns are for protecting and saving lives.
You would have though after the tragedy at the Columbine High School, Colorado school officials would have learned something. Obviously they did not.
If you are responsible for the safety of a business, school or other insbreastution sell your metal detectors and hire trained and armed professionals and let them run the security programs. If you have an empty holster guards who can't be trusted or trained to use a firearm, get rid of them.
-- What we have called the "British tradition" was made explicit mainly by a group of Scottish moral philosophers led by David Hume, Adam Smith, and Adam Ferguson, seconded by their English contemporaries Josiah Tucker, Edmund Burke, and William Paley, and drawing largely on a tradition rooted in the jurisprudence of the common law. Opposed to them was the tradition of the French Enlightenment, deeply imbued with Cartesian rationalism: the Encyclopedists and Rousseau, the Physiocrats and Condorcet, are the best-known representatives.
Though these two groups are now commonly lumped together as the ancestors of modern liberalism, there is hardly a greater contrast imaginable than that between their respective conceptions of the evolution and functioning of a social order and the role played in it by liberty. The difference is directly traceable to the predominance of an essentially empiricist view of the world in England and a rationalist approach in France. The main contrast in the practical conclusions to which these approaches led has recently been well put, as follows: "One finds the essence of freedom in spontaneity and the absence of coercion, the other believes it to be realized only in the pursuit and attainment of an absolute collective purpose"; and "one stands for organic, slow, half-conscious growth, the other for doctrinaire deliberateness; one for trial and error procedure, the other for an enforced solely valid pattern." It is the second view, as J.L. Talmon has shown in an important book from which this description is taken, that has become the origin of totalitarian democracy.
The sweeping success of the political doctrines that stem from the French tradition is probably due to their great appeal to human pride and ambition. But we must not forget that the political conclusions of the two schools derive from different conceptions of how society works. In this respect the British philosophers laid the foundations of a profound and essentially valid theory, while the rationalist school was simply and completely wrong.
- F.A. Hayek, "The Consbreastution of Liberty"