×

Safety of children

EDITOR:

Your June 1st edition carried a most moving letter by Brianna Ecklid regarding the deterioration of safety of our children now face. I agree with her analogy regarding the possibility of attack from the USSR back in the 1960s. I recall, while living in northern Ohio, we would drive to Cleveland for a ball game and pass Nike anti-aircraft batteries along the lake shore. To one as old as Brianna’s daughter is now, this was frightening and incomprehensible. We actually believed the “Duck and Cover” drills back then might be effective.

In something as insane (and perpetrated by the insane) as a school shooting, duck and cover is in fact as ineffective now as it was last century.

The most immediate questions posed by the media covering these events usually are; “what gun was used… how many… how many shots were fired… how much ammo was available… was this person associated with a ‘hate group? The first question I ask is “Why didn’t someone shoot back?” And the answer is simple – these events occur in “gun-free” zones.

I recall a shooting in a public area in Texas several years ago (citizens may be armed there) where a person with a legally carried handgun did not shoot back because he “… was afraid I’d be charged with a crime.” Innocent people died.

Joseph Heller wrote a book called “Catch 22” (yep, that one) in which the Generals and Colonels wanted the photos of bombing runs to show – and I paraphrase – “nice pattern of bombing.” Didn’t matter if the results might be effective, just so long as it “looks good” – think “optics.” This seems to be the same approach liberals and Democrat lawmakers adopt when it comes to calling for more “gun control” and continuously misleading the American public to believe all gun owners, and all guns are simply “weapons of war” or are only used for hunting and should be designed solely for that purpose. Here’s your assignment; do a word search on the Constitution and see how many times the word “hunting” comes up as opposed to the word “defense” and the context in which that word is used.

We had (and still have) missiles to defend our shores for those who cannot not defend themselves, but have nothing with which to defend our children at school or society in general. I’ve heard the argument “we don’t want our schools to look like armed camps”, but are you willing to accept the potential situation of a “slaughter house”?

Until we take serious measures, including encouraging people to protect themselves and loved ones in public and private situations we will continue to have “gun control liberals” dancing in the blood of innocents slaughtered in gun-free zones and calling for restricting our ability to defend ourselves from their failed politically correct policies.

Keep the faith Brianna, we want your daughter to be safe as well, not a statistic to bolster preventable atrocities.

Michael A. Glass

Nahma

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today