Save a Child from a Life of Crime

Buy him a gun.

There are lots of bad ideas circulating about how to protect our children from school violence. They include the promotion of snitching and increased surveillance of our children — who are already under nearly constant surveillance by public school employees. Among the worst ideas is the notion of the “gun free school zone.”  Along with schemes to register guns and watch gun owners like poodles on the lawn, the idea of disarming those who would protect our children from harm is as senseless as it is patronizing of law abiding gun owners.

The appalling cowardice of the armed guard at Columbine High who cut and ran and of the police who showed up later with overwhelming firepower but declined to enter the school is a compelling argument for armed self-defense. The police are not obliged to protect us. If Columbine is a guide, neither are they inclined to protect us. A “Gun Free School Zone” would be more accurately termed a “Defenseless Victim Zone.”

Guns are tools. Having a gun no more changes the character of its owner than having a hammer. Hammers and guns are both tools that make killing someone a lot easier. But the mere possession of the tool doesn’t increase the likelihood that the workman will become a murderer. Mr. Rogers won’t turn into Mr. Hyde just because he has a pistol in his pocket.

Those making such suggestions have the best of motives but have been conditioned by propaganda to believe eliminating liberty will provide safety.
Propaganda is this: Simplify a lie and repeat it, again and again until pretty much everyone believes it. Here is an example of a propaganda lie: Guns cause crime.
Until the passage of the gun control laws of 1968 guns in schools were common. Nearly every high school had a shooting team. In New York students routinely carried their rifles to school on the subways. Guns were readily available yet gun crime was rare and school shootings unheard of.

TV violence, often blamed for real-life violence, was also common.  I particularly remember Steve McQueen in “Wanted: Dead or Alive.” He hunted down bad guys for money. Hardly an episode went by without his killing someone with his sawed off Winchester rifle, a weapon that is today classed with machine guns. It is a felony to possess one without elaborate tax and licensing approvals.

Up until 1933 Americans could own any weapon they wanted. You could buy a 20mm anti-tank cannon by mail from an ad in the back of a comic book. Souvenir machine guns and plenty of the popular and cheap Thompson sub-machine guns were in closets all over America. All kinds of guns were easily available everywhere, but children didn’t pull them out and stage bloodbaths.

If guns caused crime, America before the late 60’s should have been a war zone. In fact it was a much more peaceful time than our own in spite of, or arguably because of, the thousands of gun restrictions passed since then.
If guns caused crime, places where guns are readily available should be hotbeds of violence. But the opposite is true. Vermont, which has the lowest crime rate of all the states, is the only one that allows any law abiding citizen to arm himself for protection anywhere.  No permit or license is necessary. Switzerland, where every able bodied male is required to have a machine gun and ammo in his home has one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

Places where only politicians and police can legally own weapons are among the most violent and dangerous anywhere. New York and Washington, D.C. are excellent examples. And when was the last time you heard of a mass murder at a gun club or shooting range where guns are everywhere you look.

By focusing on the propaganda lie that guns cause crime we are distracted from asking the truly hard questions about why our public schools are producing so many monsters. What is it about the “socialization” taking place in our compulsory, tax funded schools that generates an occasional mass murderer?  Why is the school the target? What produces that kind of rage and frustration in a few of those forced to attend? Why are they free of the normal human aversion to murder? What is it about private, religious and home schools that have allowed them to avoid student violence?

Irrelevant focus on firearms also distracts us from the very relevant question of how many school shooters have been on drugs like Ritalin and Luvox — drugs prescribed and administered by school officials.  An autopsy found Luvox in Eric Harris’ blood. Luvox is a prescribed anti-depressant like Prozac. In clinical trials by its manufacturer, Luvox produced manic destructive behavior in 4% of children and young adults.

In the face of all this misdirected concern over guns, the government has actually done a study to determine how a youngster’s owning a gun relates to later criminal behavior. The U.S. Department of Justice conducted the study from 1993 to 1995. Child psychologists tracked 4,000 inner city children, ages 6 - 15. Buried in the mass of data of the study called “Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse” were the following findings:

Children who received guns from their parents committed no gun crimes (0%). Of those who got guns illegally one in five was involved in a gun crime (21%). Children who got guns from their parents were less likely than those with no guns in the house to be involved in street crime, 14% to 24%, and dramatically less likely than children who obtained guns illegally, 14% to 74%. Children who got guns from their parents were less likely to use banned drugs than children who got guns illegally 13% to 41%.

I quote from the study: "Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use (than boys who own illegal guns) and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns."

Want to keep your child out of trouble? Buy him a gun and teach him to use it responsibly.