Government-caused tragedies get used to increase totalitarian control over every person's life. Amber Pawlik



Amber Pawlik

Amber's Blog

Facebook Page

Amber Pawlik Books

Islam on Trial

Objectivist Sexuality

Parenting Page

On Demand Side Economics

Didactic Method to Teach Economics

Totalitarianism in Plain Sight

A tragedy has once again rocked our nation. A mad man walked into an elementary school and killed nearly 30 people including a class of first graders; a horror too unbearable to contemplate. Not one to miss a good tragedy, our current government is using this tragedy to push political agendas, none of which deal with the real problem.

The solution proposed by the Obama administration is to get tighter gun control laws. Because one mad man used guns in a violent way, the proposed solution is to restrict the freedom of every single law-abiding citizen.

It is absurd to think this will prevent school shootings in the future. Laws on pieces of paper will not stop mad men. Violent psychopaths do not care about laws; murder is also illegal.  Further, this "solution" cannot and will not end here. It first of all won't work. In response, those who favor controlling all Americans as a solution to somehow eradicating the crime of a few will conclude that firearms need to be better tracked. Laws will be proposed to register firearms. When it becomes clear that criminals don't buy firearms legally, more visibility will be requested. Cameras will be proposed to watch what everyone does at all times. This is the logical course for those who propose such totalitarian solutions, i.e., having total control over the lives of every citizen.

The proposed gun control will no doubt focus on "powerful" firearms. Limiting "powerful" firearms would not have prevented this tragedy. Good or evil behavior remains the province of humans, not inanimate objects. A better solution is to focus on the ill behavior of this mad man. This could take many forms, such as cultivating a stronger, more life-affirming morality or a better ability to deal with mental illness. However, no matter how much awareness is brought to mental illness or how well values are taught, there will still be mad men. Ill, violent behavior can be minimized; it cannot be eradicated. Security will always be important. Everyone, including schools, must be security conscious. Laws don't stop violent criminals; confrontation with deadly weapons in the hands of good men does. My husband and I started the facebook group Protect Our Children; Secure Our Schools to bring awareness to the importance of security at schools.

These mass shootings are a product of bad government. Before the Gun Free School Zone Act, originally enacted in 1990, there were only 7 school shootings in 214 years. Since then, there have been over 75. National leaders need to admit: The Gun Free School Zone Act has failed. These mass shootings continue to be at places that are defenseless, with mad men targeting the most vulnerable of society, who by law are forbidden protection. (The original Gun Free School Zone Act prohibited all firearms. It was deemed by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Bill Clinton signed it back into law with some minor word changes which make firearms "allowed" but with such heavy restrictions that effectively they are forbidden.) A "gun free" zone screams "sitting duck." These mad men seek infamy, and they are doing it by hitting easy targets where they can get impressive body counts. For those who propose tighter gun control: What tighter control can there be than "no guns allowed"?

I do not buy that Clinton, Obama, Bloomberg, et al care about the security of school children. They know how important armed security is—they rely on it daily themselves. I do not think they orchestrate mass shootings but they let the monster loose and deny heroes—the  countless number of people who would gladly risk their lives engaging a mad man shooter for themselves and their loved ones—the ability to stop the monster. It is a recipe for a tragedy that they can politically cash in on. Their anti-freedom policies continue to spawn more and more anti-freedom policies, at the expense of children.

This is how our modern government works: cause trouble, create a tragedy, then blame private individuals. Government created a housing bubble, which burst around 2007, and promptly blamed greedy bankers. Government ordered the military to stand down in Benghazi and an ambassador was killed, and they blamed a private film on Islam. Now, after denying schools the ability to secure themselves and mass shootings continue to occur, they blame gun ownership. It is tyranny in plain sight, which they are using to further their totalitarian policies. There is no need to concoct conspiracy theories; what is visible is atrocious enough. They clearly do not care about the suffering they cause; they subscribe to the ideology of Lenin that a few eggs need cracked to make an omelet.

The real problem here is the lack of security at schools. The politics that revolve around increasing the security at our schools is positively maddening. Sure, if schools were private, where they were allowed to choose the method to secure themselves, this would not have to be a national debate. Parents and school staff would only have to petition the business owners of their school to increase security. But this is not the reality of our schools; most schools are public and this will not likely change. So now it has to be a national debate. You have big-government socialists who, wanting the government pot of money for their own causes, will never agree to paying for security at schools. You have (some) libertarians who, opposed to government spending at all, will oppose it on principle. Everyone has their own agenda, meanwhile, school children remain unprotected. And government continues to use these tragedies to further socialist agendas.

Government's one and only job is to secure citizens. The solution to mass shootings is not gun control but to secure schools. The solution is two-fold: let schools carry firearms and provide funding for real security departments at schools. Compared to the cost of social security, war efforts, or even welfare, the cost of adding 1 or 2 personnel at each school to have a security department is negligible. It is not a "massive government program." It is pocket change.

This solution deals with the actual problem: something our current politicians have no interest in doing.

Amber Pawlik
December 22, 2012

This article is protected under the US Copyright Act of 1976. No part may be copied.

Home / About Me
Email: amber - at - amberpawlik - dot - com