In the wake of the Parkland shooting, a Time magazine article from December of last year (which feels like forever ago but is only two months) has been making the rounds again.

How to Raise a Sweet Son in an Era of Angry Men

I haven’t read the article yet, but I’m already saying
“fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck.”

Hours after I gave birth to my first child, my husband cradled all five pounds of our boy and said, gently, “Hi, Sweetpea.” Not “Buddy” or “Little Man.” Sweetpea. The word filled me with unanticipated comfort. Like most parents, we knew what we’d name our son but never discussed how we’d speak to him. I was witnessing my husband’s commitment to raising a sweet boy.

I’m surprised she even calls her husband a “husband”and doesn’t have a more gender neutral term for him.

There are so many angry men among us. There are angry women, too, but they’re only beginning to claim this emotion that has long been denied them. Women’s public anger delivers deliberate messages—it’s pussy hats, reclaiming our time, and #MeToo. It’s the kind of anger that gives girls voices. Men’s anger tries to shut down the voices of others. Today’s angriest women galvanize; today’s angriest men murder.

Girl anger is good.  Boy anger is bad.  We’re just going to ignore the demonization of boyhood, the suicide rate for boys is three times that of girls, that boys are falling behind in schools, that America is failing its boys.  Being angry about that.  Or more precisely, being angry about feeling that something is wrong and not knowing how to put your finger on it is bad.

The world has turned so upside down that the most public displays of masculine vulnerability have come lately from late-night comedy host Jimmy Kimmel, who’s shed tears talking about children’s healthcare and gun control. It feels like another century when President Obama wept while remembering the victims of Sandy Hook — a Brigadoon of political empathy not to return during the current administration.

Here we have another woman who doesn’t understand how men process emotion.  All they know is that men don’t process it the same way as women and that is bad.

My son is now 5, and I’m also the mother of a 3-year-old girl. I’m thrilled that my daughter is growing up in a time where American girls are encouraged to be both fierce and kind, simultaneously strong and compassionate. The t-shirts that declare “Girls Rule the World” offer an empirical falsehood, but at least the aspiration is there. My daughter recently delighted me when she deemed her makeshift “kite” — a rainbow scarf tied to a stick — a fencing foil and ran about the woods parrying and proclaiming, “En garde!” But I delighted even more in my son when, at a birthday party where the balloon artist presumptuously twisted pneumatic swords for all the boys, my boy asked for a balloon heart.

She is proud that she is raising a strong daughter.  She is proud that she is raising a weak son.  This is the worst sort of woe feminism, hobbling a boy of out some perverted sense of equality.

Boys have always known they could do anything; all they had to do was look around at their presidents, religious leaders, professional athletes, at the statues that stand erect in big cities and small. Girls have always known they were allowed to feel anything — except anger. Now girls, led by women, are being told they can own righteous anger.Now they can feel what they want and be what they want.

“Boys have had it good for so long, I’m going to fix that by breaking my son emotionally.  His sister, on the other hand, I will help succeed in every way.”

There’s no commensurate lesson for boys in our culture. While girls are encouraged to be not just ballerinas, but astronauts and coders, boys—who already know they can walk on the moon and dominate Silicon Valley—don’t receive explicit encouragement to fully access their emotions. 

Fuck you.  How’s that emotion?   What does she know about fully accessing boy emotions?  Nothing.  A boy, a healthy boy gets mad or sad and fixes something, or goes for a run, or splits wood.  We don’t sit around with our friends and cry.  We turn our emotions into action.

I have a fight with my wife and I clean my truck.  I get frustrated and I go to the gym.  I once ripped the shelves out of a closet because I was pissed, then set about redoing it.

Male emotions can be constructive or destructive.  Part of raising a boy is teaching him how to use those emotions for good.  I don’t know what this woman is doing to her son, but it’s not good.

Boys are still snips and snails and puppy dog tails. We leave them behind from birth. Walk into any baby store, and you’re greeted immediately in the boys’ department by brown and neon green layettes festooned with sharks, trucks, and footballs. Onesies for newborns declare, “TOUGH LIKE DADDY.” The boy taught from infancy to be tough is emotionally doomed. (Mind you, I’m all for a onesie for any gender that announces, “RESILIENT LIKE MOMMY.”)

Oh for fuck’s sake.  Tough like daddy is a good thing.  I have battled cancer, and a compressed spinal disk.  I get up, in pain, and go to work and do a job I am proud of to take care of my family.  I fix the house, the car, and dinner.  I’m the firs one up in the morning and the last one to bed at night.  And if something goes bump in the dark, I’m the one with the flashlight and the 45 going to make sure everything is OK.  I am dad, and that is my job.  My hope is that one day my son will be that for his own family.  That isn’t emotionally doomed.

The clothes marketed to my daughter feature unicorns, rainbows, rockets, dinosaurs, and sequins in every color imaginable. They are whimsical and sparkly. My son recently asked me, “Mom, why are girls’ clothes more interesting and beautiful than boys’ clothes, and was the person who decided that a man or a woman?”

This is the wokest five-ear old ever.

Yes, they’re merely clothes, but they’re the material in which we wrap our children. A society bombarding boys with symbolism about being tough, self-contained, non-sparkly and unmagical says, “Boys will be boys, but girls can be anything.”

Our boys absorb messages about what they cannot be or do or feel.

What the fuck is this woman talking about?  She wants her son to have the option of being a weak and dependent emotional flop?  Is that really what she wants.  Some faggy* “poet” who can’t hold down a job at Starbucks?

*At this point, I want to clarify something.  I’m not a homophobe.  I don’t really care who people sleep with.  I do use the term faggy because it has a certain connotation to me.  I think the quote from Mean Girls is the most accurate description “Yeah, he’s almost too gay to function.”  Think of the character of Jack from Will & Grace.  He was so flamboyant and effete, he couldn’t hold down a job.  It’s not even a function of being gay, once upon a time people may have used the word foppish to describe it.  As best I can say, the word to me describes any male that abdicates his duties and responsibility as a man, but I wouldn’t insult women by calling him one of those.

It’s delivered by the dad in the elevator whom I watch chastise his 4-year-old son with, “Stop crying! Do you want your friends to think you’re a little baby?” Despite your lack of executive function, shut down your feelings, because kids make fun of a boy who cries. 

I tell me son to stop crying – sometimes.  I know when he is hurt or scared, and when he is making that annoying noise because he wants his way.  I turned off his cartoon to put him in the bath and cry-whines.  Nope, I’m not having any of that.  That is part of teaching responsibility, sometimes you don’t get what you want but you have to do it anyway.

It’s emailed from the mother in my daughter’s nursery school class organizing a book swap, asking for “gender-neutral books” because some 3-year-old boys “wouldn’t be crazy about princess books.” All books aren’t for everyone; boys don’t like stories that might involve an XX protagonist. 

Fuck you again.  I’ve been bombarded by the “this is the first time I saw a super hero the looked like me” about Black Panther.  I hear the same thing about every new Disney princess.  I’m told we need diversity so that everyone can have a character they can relate to.  Except the boys, fuck them, they have to like the princesses.

We don’t need to raise kids with gender neutrality or deny intrinsic differences between boys and girls. We do need to recognize that children, regardless of gender, harbor innate sweetness that we, as a society, would do well to foster and preserve.

She doesn’t want gender neutrality.  She wants her boy to be a girl.

Sweet boys grow up to be men who recognize the strength in being vulnerable and empathetic. 

Sweetness has nothing on how she is raising her son.  I predict a lifetime of therapy and emotional problems.  She has decided that everything about boyness is wrong and she is going to do it the opposite.  I can’t imagine how that is going to play out in this poor boy’s head, other than “mommy hated me because I was a boy.”

Men who aren’t threatened by criticism or perceived competition from people whom they deem “Other” — be it skin color or sexual orientation or religion or education or whatever. Sweet boys are children who’ve been given, by their parents and wider society, the permission to feel everything and to express those emotions without shame.

So men are racist, sexist, and bigoted in their natural state?  That’s not an anti-male message is it?  Again, who says that boys don’t have permission to feel?  The point of being a man is to put responsibility above emotion.

At a young age, this should be done explicitly, in organized forums for discussions at school. It must be done relentlessly and organically, in our family homes. Parents must invite their sons to be sad, afraid, hurt, silly and affectionate, and must embrace them as often as they snuggle their daughters. Sweet boys learn early on that they can defend themselves against loneliness by reaching out and asking for support rather than turning into people who, literally, grab for power. Sweet boys evolve into open-hearted men who aren’t confused about consent and sexual boundaries, because they experience women as equals. A man raised with access to the same gamut of emotions and choices as women does not say, “Women are special,” as Donald Trump recently averred after disbelieving Roy Moore’s accusers; he does not delegate sugar and spice and humility and gentleness to the ladies, while defining himself through anger, lust, and pride. Boys will not be merely boys. If we let them, boys will be human.

So boys are violent rapists unless we raise them to love pink hearts?  That is clearly an insane position.

If we’re lucky, the sweet boys and the fierce girls will grow up to save us all.

She wants her son to be weak and her daughter to be strong.  I can’t see this as anything other than she hates her son for being a boy.  She believes everything terrible in the world is do to masculinity and she is going to stomp that out of her son.

I understand now why liberals have such a hard time condemning Muslim female genital mutilation.  They secretly harbor a deep desire to turn their sons into eunuchs.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I don’t think this will make fewer school shooters but more of them.  These boys will still have boy emotions, but they won’t know how to deal with them.  They will still have boy desires but they will be crushed under the weight of terrible nurture.

One of the problems we see with boys is being raised by single mothers.  The cure is not to raise the boys as girls but to teach them how to harness what they feel for good.

I’m not saying that her son will snap and become a school shooter.  What I am saying is that if her son is ever involved in  school shooting he will sweetly hid behind a wall and cry, while other boys raised right will hide their classmates behind Kevlar barricades.

I’ve been told that IDPA will get you killed in a real gunfight.

I don’t know about that, but it will make you into a dead eye killer in living room Nerf Gun battles against a 3 year old.

In the last few days, I have seen a radical new talking point appear in the anti gun debate.

Well, a radiologist who consulted on the treatment of the Parkand victims wrote an  OpEp in The Atlantic.

What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns

This is the most politically biased use of medial credentials since “Trump is mentally unstable because a psychologist watched him on TV” was the narrative of the day, I covered how being a professional in a technical field doesn’t necessary make someone unpolitical.

This radiologist goes on to describe what she say.

As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the nation for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.

In a typical handgun injury that I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ like the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, grey bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

Now I am not a radiologist or MD of any kind for that matter.  What I am is someone with experience in ballistics.

The above is a load of shit.  The terminal ballistics of a bullet is dependent on several criteria, including velocity and bullet design.

Anybody on the gun web has known about the complaints that the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge is considered by some to be insufficient for combat use, which necessitated the development of the M855A1 for enhanced performance.

The argument that a handgun bullet makes is little hole and a rifle bullet turns people into liquid is a stupid argument, bereft of any knowledge of bullet design and performance.

It also goes against what was said about handguns by anti gun activists about 20 years ago.  Back then the outrage du jour was “cop killer” bullets.  The target of their ignorant vitriol was the Winchester Black Talon, which a MD said would “explode inside a person like a thousand razor blades.”

So which is it?  Are handgun bullets more or less dangerous than rifle rounds?  Which explodes inside of people?  Can you at least keep your bullshit consistent?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle which delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. There was nothing left to repair, and utterly, devastatingly, nothing that could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

Again, anybody who knows anything about guns knows that an AR-15 fires primarily 223 Rem/5.56.  The terminal performance isn’t a function of the gun but of the ammo.

Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and they do not bleed to death before being transported to our care at a trauma center, chances are, we can save the victim.

For a FMJ, maybe.

The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different; they travel at higher velocity and are far more lethal. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than, and imparting more than three times the energy of, a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun.

Technically correct about the velocity, but not much more than that.

With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to a trauma center to receive our care.

Personally, I would consider a liver shot to be a good center of mass hit.  They are very lethal, regardless of the round used, because the liver doesn’t stretch much and it tears and bleeds easily.  The idea that a handgun round (especially with a good JHP) to the liver is less lethal than a rifle round is bullshit, backed up by medial evidence.

As a doctor, I feel I have a duty to inform the public of what I have learned as I have observed these wounds and cared for these patients. It’s clear to me that AR-15 or other high-velocity weapons, especially when outfitted with a high-capacity magazine, have no place in a civilian’s gun cabinet. 

There is the kicker.  The 223/5.56 is just too lethal for civilians to own.  No more center fire rifles for us.

I have friends who own AR-15 rifles; they enjoy shooting them at target practice for sport, and fervently defend their right to own them. But I cannot accept that their right to enjoy their hobby supersedes my right to send my own children to school, to a movie theater, or to a concert and to know that they are safe. 

They have no “right to be safe.”  That is impossible.  Also, what threat does her friends’ AR-15’s pose to her children?  I assume she thinks her friends are responsible.

If politicians want to back comprehensive mental-health reform, I am all for it. As a medical doctor, I’ve witnessed firsthand the toll that mental-health issues take on families and the individuals themselves who have no access to satisfactory long-term mental-health care. But the president and Congress should not use this issue as an excuse to deliberately overlook the fact that the use of AR-15 rifles is the common denominator in many mass shootings.

“let me use my medical authority to push a purely political point.  Anybody who disagrees with the Politburo or Communism is insane.”

A medical professor taught me about the dangers of drawing incorrect conclusions from data with the example of gum chewing, smokers, and lung cancer. He said smokers may be more likely to chew gum to cover bad breath, but that one cannot look at the data and decide that gum chewing causes lung cancer. It is the same type of erroneous logic that focuses on mental health after mass shootings, when banning the sale of semi-automatic rifles would be a far more effective means of preventing them.  

That is exactly 100% the opposite.  According to SLATE, there are almost 2.5 Million AR-15’s in the US.  I was talking with someone who said that during the height of the  gun boom, DMPS did a record month of over 12,000 rifles built and shipped.  If this had to do with guns and not mental health at anything close to the rate of cancer in smokers, there would be multiple school shootings per week.  This is a statistically bullshit argument.

As a radiologist, I have now seen high velocity AR-15 gunshot wounds firsthand, an experience that most radiologists in our country will never have. I pray that these are the last such wounds I have to see, and that AR-15-style weapons and high-capacity magazines are banned for use by civilians in the United States, once and for all.

“I still know nothing about guns except that I hate them and will use gory stories from the hospital to shock people into associating ‘high velocity bullets’ with gun bans.”

On its own, this is one hack MD’s opinion.  However, this “high velocity bullet” thing is becoming a trend.

Watch: After some in the liberal media ridiculed @MarcoRubio for days, for saying that even Democrats are not willing to support a ban on all semi automatic weapons, one of the most liberal Senators, @ChrisMurphyCT admits to @jaketapper that Rubio is in fact correct. pic.twitter.com/HRR8c8pkB2

— Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) February 25, 2018

Senator Chris Murphy’s description of an assault rifle is “long rifle semi automatic” weapons with bullets that travel “three times the speed of a handgun.”  It’s not the function of the gun anymore, is the ammo.  No more center fire rifle ammo for us, especially out of semi auto rifles.

Of course something from MSNBC, which I touched on in a previous Post.

Lawrence: A bullet fired from an AR-15 travels 3x faster than one from a handgun.

And yet the president and the NRA think giving teachers guns will stop a school shooter https://t.co/heze69kRDU

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) February 23, 2018

It’s that same “three times as fast as a handgun” argument.  Also, giving bullet velocity in MPH is just fucking stupid.  It’s actually scarier as 3,200 FPS.

This is the next terrible direction they are going.

They are going to scare the ignorant about centerfire rifles the same way they did about “cop killer” bullets.  If you don’t think that is frightening, just remember that New Jersey you can’t carry hollowpoints, even if you magically have a NJ carry permit.  Several states banned Teflon coated ammo (Teflon does nothing on impact, anybody who tells you “the Teflon makes the bullet slip between the fibers of bullet proof vest” is wrong and an idiot – it’s like saying they can fuck someone through a pair of jeans if they sprayed PAM on their dick).  The ATF banned bullets for handguns that are made of brass, contain steel, beryllium copper, or meet other qualifications that they say are “armor pricing.”

The media called for a ban on M855 ammo as “cop killer” bullets which was almost implemented.

The anti gun establishment is going for a two prong approach to a gun ban.  Rehashing the old assault weapon ban is one prong.  The other is going after high velocity ammo.  The later is even worse because it will apply to every centerfire rifle in America.  They can say “semi auto” all they want, but every bottleneck centerfire rifle cartridge in America that I can think of exceeds 2,000 FPS.

If they manage to pull that one off, every centerfire rifle in America is at risk, which obviously is their point.

This is something that nobody in the media has covered, even on the pro-gun side, and it’s starting to piss me off.

According to MSNBC:

Lawrence: A bullet fired from an AR-15 travels 3x faster than one from a handgun.

And yet the president and the NRA think giving teachers guns will stop a school shooter https://t.co/heze69kRDU

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) February 23, 2018

The point being, going up against a gunman armed with a rifle, with a handgun, is pointless.

Juliet Lapidos of of the LA Time said something similar.

https://twitter.com/julietlapidos/status/966807400333193216

Even Joyce Carole Oats, in her own stupid, know-nothing way, had the same belief.

how could a single school guard, armed with a conventional weapon, expect to confront & "kill" an individual w/ AK-15 who has methodically plotted an attack? isn't this demanding of the guard that he sacrifice his life? would NRA pay his widow a bonus?

— Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) February 23, 2018

This entire argument in regards to the Parkland shooting is a load of dangerous horseshit.

There are trends we see in school shootings.

School shooters try to inflict as many casualties as they can as fast as they can.  School shooters routinely commit suicide  as soon as they experience armed resistance.

• Adam Lanza shot himself when he heard the sirens.
• Senug-Hui Cho shot himself once the police got into the building he was in.
• Eric Harris and Daniel Kelbold bot shot themselves in the library after they rampage had ended.

Nikolas Cruz left the school and went to McDonald’s where he was taken alive, and unarmed by police.

This is important information to understand in developing tactics to deal with school shooters.

#1:  Do not hesitate.  As soon as the shooting starts, run towards the sound of gunfire.

That is the most important.  The longer you wait, the more casualties there will be.

Here is where the “you can’t expect police with handguns to engage a shooter with a rifle” starts to fall apart.  Sure, I’m not going to want to take a 9mm handgun against a rifle on the battlefield, but that is a very different scenario from a school shooting.

First of all, ranges are limited.  Maybe 25 to 50 yards for an auditorium or a long hallway.  That is still well within the lethal effective range of a handgun.

Second, yes, rifles are more powerful, but those buildings are almost universally concrete block.  A 223 out of an AR-15 isn’t going to penetrate a cinder block wall any better than a pistol.  A cinder block was is adequate cover against a AR-15 at close range.

I don’t give a shit if cops aren’t trained to shoot accurately over that distance.   That leads me to the second most important rule of responding to a school shooting.

#2A.  Shoot at that son-of-a-bitch.  Shoot at him a lot.  Most likely, he will kill himself as soon as rounds start coming his way.  A dead shooter is a dead shooter, if the bullet that does it comes from a cop or his own gun, doesn’t matter.  END THE FIGHT.

#2B.  If he doesn’t kill himself right away, keep fucking shooting at him.  The more distracted he is being shot at by police, the less focused he will be on killing innocents.  Every second the shooter is taking cover from a cop is a second he is not shooting at kids.  A cop carrying a modern double stack 9mm or 40 S&W has roughly 45 rounds on his body.  ALL OF THEM should be on their way to the shooter as fast as possible. 

The military calls that covering fire.  It is why it issues belt fed weapons, and the Army fires 250,000 rounds for every dead insurgent in Iraq.  We learned back in WWI, that magazine cutoffs and slow rates of fire was ineffective in battle.  That was after the Seventh Calvary with single shot rifles was over run by Indians with Henry Repeaters.  Volume of fire matters in situations like that.

Look back at the famous 1997, North Hollywood Bank of America shootout.

From a police preparedness situation, it was a disaster.  The cops only had handguns.  The two bank robbers were armed with FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons, converted from semi-auto.  They were wearing heavy body armor.

The main firefight was in the parking lot of the Bank of America building.

A number of police went to a gun store to borrow AR-15’s to fight the men in body armor.  That did little to turn the tide of the fight.  One of the robbers, Larry Phillips, shot himself in the head after being cornered and wounded by police.  The other was shot by SWAT and bled out while handcuffed.

The sheer volume of fire laid down by police allowed an armored car to move into the parking lot and rescue the wounded.

This was a bank robbery, not a school shooting, and still we saw how firing on the bad guy and cornering him was enough to make him kill himself, while distracting the robbers from shooting at innocent civilians in the bank.

Apply this tactic to school shootings, it will be even more effective.

In the last 24 hours we learned that not just did the coward Scot Peterson not engage, but a total of four Broward Sheriff Deputies not enter the school.

Four Deputies is 180 rounds, the equivalent of a US Army infantry trooper’s battle load.  That would have been enough of a distraction to stop Cruz from shooting at the kids, even if not a single Sheriff’s round actually hit him.

The other pile of horse shit the media is spreading about this incident is that it disproves the “good guy with a gun” idea

So FOUR 'good guys with a gun' were not able to stop the bad guy.
I think this kinda ends the 'arm the teachers' bullsh*t, don't you? https://t.co/hVHtw7negn

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) February 23, 2018

https://twitter.com/CillizzaCNN/status/967058056055001089

A good guy with a gun only stops a bad guy with a gun ONLY WHEN HE USES HIS FUCKING GUN!

Being a chicken shit outside doesn’t do fuck all.

From everything we know about the psychology of school shooters a single CCW firing at the shooter with a compact 9mm or 38 snub nose would have done a whole lot more than four cops with piss running down their legs outside.

In situations like this, the number one goal is to save innocent lives.  Anything that keeps the shooter from shooting at innocents is a step in the right direction.

AND THAT IS THE FUCKING POINT!

I have an idea why the reaction to this shooting has been so much worse than Virginia Tech, Las Vegas, or Orlando, even though those body counts were higher.

Yes, some of it is resonance with the Anti Trump movement. But I think there is more.

Every bit of news that has come out of this shooting is about just how bad the government shit the bed then fucked the dog on the shit covered sheets.

The school didn’t report any of the warnings to police about Cruz.  The Sheriff’s department had 39 calls to the house but did nothing.  The Department of Children and Families dropped the ball when Cruz’s foster mom reported violent incidents. The FBI dropped the ball on multiple tips. 

For school RSO Scot Peterson, when danger reared it’s ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes, brave Deputy Peterson turned about and gallantly he chickened out.  Swiftly taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. Bravest of the brave, Deputy Peterson. 

Now we find out that the school security cameras were on a 20 minute delay.  So the footage the police were seeing was 20 minutes behind.

Remember that the First Commandment of the Church of State is: I am the Lord your government, and you shall have no other gods before me. 

For the worshippers of big government, they can’t let it be seen that their God is fallible.  Layer upon layer of bureaucracy let those kids die.  That’s not supposed to happen.   The government is supposed to take care of everybody if you open your heart and home to big government and let it in.

So these people have to blame the NRA, guns, and Dana Loesch, at the top of their lungs to distract from the failure of their god.  If their God is fallible, people will lose faith in it.

They are over the top in thier reaction to this shooting precisely because everything they believe in failed to miserably to prevent it, and they just can’t handle that.

The far Left has lost its dammed mind.  There is no doubt about it. 

Wherever a person stands on gun control, the majority of rational people understand that having some sort of law enforcement or security personnel in schools is a good way to reduce the likelihood of criminal violence in schools.

The far Left has drunk so deeply from the well of identity politics that it can’t even agree to that.

Armed teachers and more armed guards will lead to brown and black children fearing for their lives at school as well as on the streets. Trained police officers shoot unarmed children now. We know this. Put more guns in schools and…

— Ana Marie Cox (@anamariecox) February 23, 2018

To Mrs Cox, armed professionals in school are MORE dangerous to minority students than school shooters. 

This is an overdose on Black Lives Matter.

Only a crazy person would see a police officer in a school hallway and instead of saying “probably won’t be another Parkland here,” says “oh no, some unarmed black kid is going to be murders by him on his way to class.”

The have become so anti cop they can’t even agree to use police to protect children in school.

I just can’t wait for this to be a more mainstream Democrat message.

“We can’t prevent the next Parkland with police because they’re racists and will murder black students.”

That is something the major of parents in the US can really rally around.

Over the last 10 days, I’ve heard a lot about “arming teachers.”  It is something my wife brought up to me.

I need to say that is the shitiest rhetoric on this subject.

Are we talking about taking teachers who have never shot a gun before, and may even be anti gun themselves, and giving them one training session and a gun and sticking them back in the classroom?

Because that is a terrible fucking idea.

I know that “IDPA/USPSA isn’t a firefight, that stuff will get you killed” (/sarc/) but to use it as an example, when I got back into it, it took me a while to get over the “first stage jitters.”  The timer went *BEEP* and erased all the stage plans I had made during the walk through.  If I don’t shoot for a little bit, I’ll still get a little jumpy on the first stage.  I had the chance to talk to a professional shooter and one of the things he said is that one of the big things that separates a pro from am amateur is having had that timer go *BEEP* so many times that you stay focused and remain collected every time.

And that’s in a game.  Make it life and death when you are not expecting it and it’s going to be worse.

So a teacher who has never shot before, sent off to do two days worth of training, and hasn’t shot since is going to be a hair above worthless.

On the other hand are we talking about letting teachers or administrators who already have CCW permits and who want to carry, carry in schools?  Will we be providing them with additional training?

That is something I can get behind.  That is a person who has some familiarity with guns.  Who is more likely to go out on a weekend and shoot and maintain a minimal skill level.

Remember, the Israeli teacher carrying a rifle on a field trip had just spent two years on active service in the Israeli army.

I know the antis will lie and distort the truth at every turn.  They do it every day.  That’s why we need to control the language of this conversation.

“Arm the teachers” sounds unpalatable.  It conjures up an image of forcing sweet, little, old, Mrs Crabapple to turn into John McClane, and sounds agressive (forcing guns on people who don’t want them).

Something more along the lines of “allow teachers with CCW permit to carry in schools” is entirely honest.  It’s less aggressive and the positive statistics on our side.

I really want pro gun people who get media interviews to stop saying “arm the teachers.”  If we let the antis dictate the language, we will lose.