Thank
you for contacting me with your support for H.R. 35, the Safe Schools Act. I appreciate that you took
the time to share your thoughts with me.
I
support the constitutional right of citizens to bear arms. While I understand the desire to take all
steps possible to keep our schools safe, I have many concerns about the unintended consequences that
could arise from having armed personnel in our schools. H.R. 35 has been referred to the House Judiciary
Committee. As a senior member of this committee, I will be sure to keep your comments in mind if this
bill is brought before the full committee for debate.
Although
we may not agree on this issue, I encourage you to contact me about other issues that interest you. Again,
thanks for being in touch.
Sincerely
Zoe Lofgren
Member of Congress
----- SNIP -----
No, we're not likely to EVER agree on this issue - after all Rep. Lofgren is a Democrat (as is nearly every other "elected" California official. No, I'm not a Republican - I'm NPA, somewhere off to the Right of the Libertarians. Can't help it - the purpose of the government is to punish transgressions of social order and against people, but the powers of government MUST be limited to favour the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, save where such rights are used to harm another. NO-ONE has the "right" to harm another - and I can accept this. However, if you believe you have a misplaced right to harm me - or another anywhere near me, don't think I'm not going to use whatever force is necessary to stop you. Stop taking away the tools I need to defend myself or others!)
Anyhow, my response to Rep. Lofgren -
----- SNIP -----
Representative Lofgren -
Thank you for getting back to me WRT HR35 - "The Safe Schools Act."
While we obviously disagree on the methods, I'm sure we agree on the desired result - a decrease in violent acts perpetrated by miscreants.
However, I think we can also agree, upon examination of historical evidence, that disarming the populace at large WILL NOT WORK. It hasn't yet - one need only refer to Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, or New York City to see that this is so.
Einstein once popularly defined "insanity" as "doing the same thing the same way, over and over again, yet expecting a different result."
Every time something else like this happens, we get the reflexive "we need more laws!" response. If the laws we had in place didn't work, how will MORE be of any help?
And, why does any firearms control proposal we see coming down target the otherwise law-abiding, seeking to make criminals out of people with NO CRIMINAL INTENT whatever? They - we - are not the problem.
Moreover, it has been borne out in law throughout the history of the United States that the State has NO duty WHATEVER to protect the individual. This is a principle found in English Common Law (upon which much of our early law was based,) to the creation of the office of "Sheriff" about 600 years ago - the original duty of the Sheriff was to the STATE, not the individual. The only time the interests of the individual and the state intersect, WRT personal defense, is when the interests of the State are served by the protection of that individual (for example, material witnesses in major trials.)
Since the State has no duty (express, implied, or derived) to protect the individual member of the body politic, then the body politic MUST be empowered with the choice and the ability to protect itself. No other conclusion can be logically reached.
As I see it, there are two possible solutions:
1) Make schools something akin to fortresses. Keep kids locked down all day, don't even let them outside for recess.
Know that I do NOT favour this approach! We don't need to be raising children in a climate of fear, it would be far more damaging to their psyches, in the long term, than any single incident could be!
2) Empower and train school staff to "repel boarders," as it were - to deal with threats to the student body rapidly, decisively, and precisely. Such training would be easy enough to implement; and a handful of faculty or staff, empowered & equipped to handle such threats, would have much greater response times than would waiting for the police.
Let us refer to Sandy Hook - Lanza went in and started knocking the place down, then shot himself after some five minutes or so had passed, yes? However, the PD response wasn't even ON SCENE for at least fifteen minutes - at which time, the threat had neutralized ITSELF.
Now, if they had had, say, an armed & trained individual there in maintenance (which would make sense - maintenance workers are everywhere, move about at random, and have access to pretty much everything,) it is quite likely that Lanza would have been stopped COLD within a minute or two.
Waiting for PD response involves first CALLING the PD to MOUNT a response. Then they have to get there. Then set up their C&C. Then 'assess the situation' before mounting a response.
About the only way you can get an active PD response inside of a half-hour is if they were ALREADY ON SCENE - with that sort of time before an effective response could be mounted, one could go through and kill most of the people in a school building with a simple baseball bat!
This is also why expecting the PDs to secure the individual is impractical - they have to be called, they have to get there, they have to figure out what's going on, and THEN they can respond.
I'm already there, I already know what's going on (since I'm in the middle of it,) I have already worked out a few different responses, I merely need to pick one.
PD response time? 5-20 minutes. My response time? 2-10 SECONDS. Now, put yourself in that sort of position, and tell me what you would prefer (no driver, no security detail - just you, on the street somewhere.)
I have nothing against police officers - I have plenty that I am proud to call friends. However, the typical "beat cop" is really little more than a HISTORIAN - becoming involved AFTER the situation has reached its conclusion (satisfactory or no.)
Given a choice, I'd rather be able to mount an effective response myself, since I have the duty that the police do not (and, if I don't exercise that duty to the fullest of my ability, that is MY choice. However, I do not wish to have that ability artificially capped through the action of law. The bad guys don't follow such laws - that is precisely why we call them "bad guys!")
As always, I welcome further discussion on this topic. It is impossible to have a "meeting of the minds," if the minds never meet.
-JDK
Thank you for getting back to me WRT HR35 - "The Safe Schools Act."
While we obviously disagree on the methods, I'm sure we agree on the desired result - a decrease in violent acts perpetrated by miscreants.
However, I think we can also agree, upon examination of historical evidence, that disarming the populace at large WILL NOT WORK. It hasn't yet - one need only refer to Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, or New York City to see that this is so.
Einstein once popularly defined "insanity" as "doing the same thing the same way, over and over again, yet expecting a different result."
Every time something else like this happens, we get the reflexive "we need more laws!" response. If the laws we had in place didn't work, how will MORE be of any help?
And, why does any firearms control proposal we see coming down target the otherwise law-abiding, seeking to make criminals out of people with NO CRIMINAL INTENT whatever? They - we - are not the problem.
Moreover, it has been borne out in law throughout the history of the United States that the State has NO duty WHATEVER to protect the individual. This is a principle found in English Common Law (upon which much of our early law was based,) to the creation of the office of "Sheriff" about 600 years ago - the original duty of the Sheriff was to the STATE, not the individual. The only time the interests of the individual and the state intersect, WRT personal defense, is when the interests of the State are served by the protection of that individual (for example, material witnesses in major trials.)
Since the State has no duty (express, implied, or derived) to protect the individual member of the body politic, then the body politic MUST be empowered with the choice and the ability to protect itself. No other conclusion can be logically reached.
As I see it, there are two possible solutions:
1) Make schools something akin to fortresses. Keep kids locked down all day, don't even let them outside for recess.
Know that I do NOT favour this approach! We don't need to be raising children in a climate of fear, it would be far more damaging to their psyches, in the long term, than any single incident could be!
2) Empower and train school staff to "repel boarders," as it were - to deal with threats to the student body rapidly, decisively, and precisely. Such training would be easy enough to implement; and a handful of faculty or staff, empowered & equipped to handle such threats, would have much greater response times than would waiting for the police.
Let us refer to Sandy Hook - Lanza went in and started knocking the place down, then shot himself after some five minutes or so had passed, yes? However, the PD response wasn't even ON SCENE for at least fifteen minutes - at which time, the threat had neutralized ITSELF.
Now, if they had had, say, an armed & trained individual there in maintenance (which would make sense - maintenance workers are everywhere, move about at random, and have access to pretty much everything,) it is quite likely that Lanza would have been stopped COLD within a minute or two.
Waiting for PD response involves first CALLING the PD to MOUNT a response. Then they have to get there. Then set up their C&C. Then 'assess the situation' before mounting a response.
About the only way you can get an active PD response inside of a half-hour is if they were ALREADY ON SCENE - with that sort of time before an effective response could be mounted, one could go through and kill most of the people in a school building with a simple baseball bat!
This is also why expecting the PDs to secure the individual is impractical - they have to be called, they have to get there, they have to figure out what's going on, and THEN they can respond.
I'm already there, I already know what's going on (since I'm in the middle of it,) I have already worked out a few different responses, I merely need to pick one.
PD response time? 5-20 minutes. My response time? 2-10 SECONDS. Now, put yourself in that sort of position, and tell me what you would prefer (no driver, no security detail - just you, on the street somewhere.)
I have nothing against police officers - I have plenty that I am proud to call friends. However, the typical "beat cop" is really little more than a HISTORIAN - becoming involved AFTER the situation has reached its conclusion (satisfactory or no.)
Given a choice, I'd rather be able to mount an effective response myself, since I have the duty that the police do not (and, if I don't exercise that duty to the fullest of my ability, that is MY choice. However, I do not wish to have that ability artificially capped through the action of law. The bad guys don't follow such laws - that is precisely why we call them "bad guys!")
As always, I welcome further discussion on this topic. It is impossible to have a "meeting of the minds," if the minds never meet.
-JDK
----- SNIP -----
(No, I signed it with my proper name. But, I don't see a need to repeat that here.)
We'll see what comes of it. I don't expect much - but, as they say, "hope springs eternal..."
No comments:
Post a Comment