WOOF TAKES ON HUMANITARIAN MISSION OF REFORM!



“Americans always beat up the peanut vendor when their team loses!” — Marshall McLuhan (The Medium is the Message)

Okay, WOOF really wanted to let the liberals and the patriotic men and women of the NRA work this one out for themselves, but it looks like they’re just going to mess it up, so we’re sticking our muzzle into it—and yes, this should really go in our “Guns and Wham-o” forum, and it probably will, eventually, but we thought we’d just put it out here as a public service, because it seems that once again we are needed. Okay, we all know that psychopaths like to shoot large numbers of innocent people, and that the most convenient location in which to find large numbers of innocent people is usually in school. We also know that nobody ever shoots back because the wily psychopaths usually pick the places with the highest levels of anti-gun sentiment the better to carry out their foul deeds—like Norway, for instance—remember that guy? He killed 80 people before anybody else arrived with a gun.

Similarly, in 2008, Marti Saari, 22, walked into a vocational college in Kauhajoki, Finland, and shot 10 people, then set their bodies on fire—and then shot himself. (That makes 11). Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, was mad because he’d been expelled from school in Erfurt, Germany, so he killed 13 teachers, two former classmates and one policeman, before committing suicide. Back in 1996, Martin Bryant, 29, sauntered into a café in Port Arthur, Tasmania, and gunned down 20 people, killing 15 more on his way out of the place. In the same year, Thomas Hamilton shot 43 kindergarten children and their teacher in an elementary school in Dunblane Scotland and then shot himself. In 1989 Marc Lepine shot every woman he encountered at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique College, killing nine and then himself, apparently oblivious of the fact that he himself was not a woman, and making it impossible to ascertain his motive. We focus here on non-domestic incidents in order to demonstrate that a) they occur even in countries where gun control is almost total, and b) many people don’t realize they occur at all.

American Liberalism has never been able to cope with the idea of evil except perhaps as they perceive it to be embodied in such personages as Dick Cheney, so the Liberal must always substitute a talisman, a replacement for the actual problem. In the ‘80s this meant unilateral disarmament, because the Left was so frightened of nuclear war it craved the elimination of all American nukes, overlooking the fact that Soviet superiority in such weapons would be the surest guarantor of a nuclear war. Ronald Reagan said it was like getting rid of the fire department because you hate fires. Similarly, in its argument for “choice,” the concept of infanticide is too horrible for liberal contemplation and so the baby becomes fetal matter and the issue becomes the woman’s body, which we all enjoy contemplating but which is only obliquely apposite. With mass shootings the idea of killing the mass shooter is too horrible for Liberals to contemplate, so they chant that the elimination of guns is the answer. But lets review.

You cannot legally own a gun in Finland unless you have first obtained an acquisition license, which canbe requested, for a fee, from the local police. A separate license is required for each individual firearm. Self-loading rifles must be kept in certified gun safes inspected and approved by the local police authority. In Germany the law requires would-be gun owners to prove need, expertise and mental stability in order to get government permission to use and keep firearms.

To get a gun in Tasmania you have to apply for a firearms license. You have to show a genuine reason for requiring a firearm, and wanting to shoot people is not on the list–and you have to demonstrate a need for the particular firearm you wish to own, and you have to store the weapon in an approved safe. Most readers are aware, WOOF supposes, that Scottish restrictions on gun ownership, in conformity with British laws generally, are among the most restrictive in the world. Liberals may now be applauding wildly –but please review the mass shootings we listed above—each occurred not only despite restrictive gun laws, but to an equally plausible extent, because of them! In Connecticut, to cite a tragic recent example, a permit is required to carry a handgun on or about one’s person, or in a vehicle, and the applicant must first complete a handgun safety course approved by the state. Not only did Mr. Lanza slip right through the state’s gun legislation, he seemed undeterred by being refused the legal purchase of a firearm. He couldn’t even get Dick’s Sporting Good store in Danbury to sell him a rifle, and rifles are easier to purchase than handguns since liberals used to blame handguns for everything almost exclusively. He used an illegally obtained weapon and gained access to the school by breaking and entering. Apparently it hadn’t occurred to anybody that a locked school door wouldn’t work very well if a suicidally deranged gunman smashed through the glass.

So “banning” guns, like “banning” nuclear weapons, is hardly the road to freedom from spree killing lunatics. Even the infamous “Batman” shootings in Colorado (which has gun-friendly laws) occurred only after the killer bypassed two closer theaters showing the same film but where handgun carry was not prohibited. So Liberalism is clearly wrong in its supposition that grabbing the guns out of Americans’ homes will stop gun violence. Most Liberals believe this because they are liberal, and not thinking carefully. The ruling class Liberals, such as Obama and his subversive puppet masters, know this perfectly well, but have long wanted an unarmed American citizenry as part of the agenda of their Worldwide Socialist Totalitarian Conspiracy. These power seekers wish only to see America disarmed and its Constitution shredded, and since nothing else will satisfy them, they don’t really figure into the current conversation. It is the genuine, caring, air-headed liberal, like Dianne Feinstein or Chuckie Schumer who suffers the talismanic obsession with gun banning as an authentic solution—and even at that, WOOF has learned that Chuckie likes to shoot. He particularly seems to enjoy blasting away with a Tec-9, a piece of junk by any standard, and one he wrote legislation to ban, but apparently cool-looking enough to give the Senator a visceral thrill on weekends. Liberals!

So what about the NRA’s idea of putting a cop in every school? Listen, Wayne LaPierre is a good guy and all, but he’s no Chuck Heston. Wayne is under a lot of pressure, and the whole cop-in-every-school idea may have been the first thing to come to mind, but it will never work. It would run afoul of sabotage from local police chiefs (and police chiefs are political animals who got where they are, by and large, playing footsy with the Leftist establishment), and local school boards who are largely irrationally liberal.

And even where it might actually be brought to fruition, the plan would provide one uniformed policeman who would be a likely first target of a nut with a gun. So WOOF has to say, nothing but love for you Wayne, but let’s rethink this. (Before moving on however, WOOF wonders—is Wayne LaPierre related to Cher whose last name was also LaPierre before she married Sonny? See, Cher might’ve turned out okay if she’d just stuck with Sonny—shows you what divorce does to peoples brains, right?)

Now, here comes the armed-teachers argument. Right now in Utah (which ranks 2nd after Texas on WOOF’s official list of sane states), teachers are turning out by the hundreds to attend firearms training classes in Salt Lake City. As one teacher put it, “[In the event of a school shooting] we’re sitting ducks—you don’t have chance in hell—you’re dead, no ifs ands or buts!” And in Ohio, a firearms group is launching a new test program to teach tactical firearms handling to 24 teachers. This is great stuff, and even greater because it absolutely drives liberals into apoplectic fits (which is one of WOOF’s clearly established main goals) but it is probably not the way—er—forward. Sooner or later a well intentioned, somewhat well trained educator will leave a Glock or a Ruger on his or her desk long enough for some middle-school student to snatch it, and while no violence may result, a carefully orchestrated spasm of media hysteria certainly will, and the whole armed teachers program will be dropped like a hot Saturday Night Special.

Remember when that gun turret explosion happened on the U.S.S. Iowa? Remember the solution the politicians and President Bush (the First) came up with? Well maybe you don’t, so here it is: Get rid of America’s battleships! Heck, even Cher, who seems to be emerging as this screed’s recurrent theme, loved battleships—almost literally, vide her “If I Could Turn Back Time” video of decreasingly recent vintage. But one misfire in a forward turret and out they went! And with the Socialist Totalitarian Establishment in charge of almost everything the average American hears, sees, or is entertained by, it is painfully obvious that the first time anything goes wrong with the armed teachers plan, the plan will be rolled up by the Left with only a few whimpers of protest from the sheeple. Besides, we really don’t need a kind of well-intentioned Volkssturm doddering up and down school corridors toting weapons they are insufficiently trained to use matched with imperfectly developed weapons-management skills that may result in incidents, however slight, that the Leftwing Establishment Media will be poised to seize upon. That’s why the Utah experiment is unlikely to prove ideal.

As usual, the great state of Arizona (number three on WOOF’s sane states list, narrowly edging ahead of Alaska), has a better idea. The Arizona attorney general has proposed changing state law to permit an educator in each school to carry a gun. And this is almost what is needed. Look, WOOF doesn’t want to abridge anybody’s right to carry a gun—we have Congress for that! And if teachers feel safer armed, let them go armed. Let college students do likewise! Statistics show time and again that the more heavily armed a lawful group of citizens is, the less crime and violence is perpetrated in their midst. The fact that liberals find this incomprehensible is one of the best evidences that liberalism should be included in the forthcoming DSM-V as a form of personality disorder! (Of course it won’t be, because the DSM– properly the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association– is compiled, edited, and revised entirely by liberals)

And while we are thus digressed, this seems like a good place to add that some liberals have turned to a different talismanic substitute for really bad people—they have turned to really insane people and (joined by a few unwary conservatives) attempted to lay the blame for events in Connecticut and elsewhere at the feet of slipshod mental healthcare providers who, it seems, are not doing their jobs. Look people, the best psychologists on earth can’t typically tell when most psychopaths are going to go on a rampage, and the solution is not more widely disseminated neuroleptic drugs—nope, sorry. It’s more widely disseminated guns. That’s right—guns. But not on the hip of every health-class spinster in the NEA. Nope. That’s why the Arizona idea is closer to the mark. Here’s what is needed:

The ideal self-defense plan for a school would be the identification by the principal of three to four volunteer teachers who are either expertly conversant with firearms or who are willing to become so. These individuals, male or female, will be known to the Principal alone, and perhaps certain members of staff. Neither their identities nor, necessarily, their very existence need be publicized in any fashion. These individuals would be gun savvy volunteers who would carry a key inconspicuously on their persons, around the necks of males, or otherwise concealed on the persons of females whose mode of dress might make a neck chain visible. These keys would open any of four permanent, non-portable gun safes placed at equidistant localities around the school, known full well to the teachers, but to no one else except the principal and a few trusted staff. The gun safes would be secured in hidden locales making them otherwise unapparent among the typical surroundings of a school environment. They would contain a prescribed firearm and three additional magazines. In the event of shots being heard or strangers entering unbidden, the prescribed teachers would go to these locations and whoever was nearest would be first to challenge the shooter or the intruder, gun ready for use if needed.

One might argue that by the time shots have been heard it is too late for some, and this is unfortunately true, but there would be far less time for a shooter to inflict casualties, and the deterrent of knowing such systems were in place would be tremendous. For the ultimate word on the sagacity of this plan, let’s hear from the Israelis: Oren Shemtov is the CEO of Israel’s Academy of Security and Investigation. In a recent interview with Fox’s Greg Tepper, Shemtov noted that armed faculty could go a long ways toward slowing down a planned killing spree while police are notified of the incursion and head for the scene. According to Shemtov, “Two (armed) teachers would have kept (the Newtown shooter) occupied….we need to give them the tools to be heroes.” Security consultant Dov Zwerling of the Israeli counter-terror police, added: “Of all the active shooter events in the U.S., almost all of them conclude with the shooter taking his own life the moment he is challenged by the first officer on the scene. Why not challenge him earlier?” Damn straight, Dov!

So, there is the WOOF plan, America—it’s cheap, it’s low profile, it’s Israeli approved, and it’ll work—so we’re pretty much assuming it isn’t going any further than this page. But one thing is totally for sure: All the addle pate liberal politicians, school officials and University pundits backed by the full faith and credit of the Monolithic Leftwing Media Cabal will not do anything whatsoever to lessen the threat of gun violence in America. They will only achieve what they always achieve when they put feelings into a cause—the exact opposite of what they profess to desire, a cavalcade of unintended and equally undesired consequences, and a bunch of little magnetized ribbons to put on your hybrid. And then of course, they will recommend even more of what made the problem worse to begin with. Only WOOF can protect honest God-fearing Americans from liberal do-gooders run amok—but when it comes to nuts threatening our children, we can’t afford to lash out at talismans.

Even if he isn’t related to Cher, Wayne LaPierre got one thing absolutely dead center: The only thing that has ever stopped a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Not another law, not TV brow beatings from bullying wimps like little Davey Gregory and his petulant ilk, not another lecture from moronic entertainment personalities, no—only gunfire. That’s what Harry Callahan meant when he said, “there’s nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot.” And isn’t this the land of Wild Bill Hickok and Jingles Jones? Of Fess Parker as Davy Crockett? Of Chris Colt, Cheyenne Bodie and Bronco Layne? Of Jack Bauer and Dirty Harry? Come on people, reach for your roots! If we give up our guns, who will protect us? The liberals? Oh, that’s right, they all have bodyguards and concealed-carry permits. What’s with that, by the way? Anyhow, more on this as needed! And somehow, sadly, we feel that needed it shall be!