David Mamet has taken his right-wing apostasy to the hilt, arguing at the Daily Beast that we really, really need armed security guards in schools. The problem is, having spoken to many security guards over the years, I know lots of them would be violating parole if they carried firearms. This assertion seems particularly untrue: “The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so.” No, not really. Oh, and fuck Mitch and Murray! From “Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm“:
“What possible purpose in declaring schools ‘gun-free zones’? Who bringing a gun, with evil intent, into a school would be deterred by the sign?
Ah, but perhaps one, legally carrying a gun, might bring it into the school.
Good.
We need more armed citizens in the schools.
Walk down Madison Avenue in New York. Many posh stores have, on view, or behind a two-way mirror, an armed guard. Walk into most any pawnshop, jewelry story, currency exchange, gold store in the country, and there will be an armed guard nearby. Why? As currency, jewelry, gold are precious. Who complains about the presence of these armed guards? And is this wealth more precious than our children?
Apparently it is: for the Left adduces arguments against armed presence in the school but not in the wristwatch stores.
Q. How many accidental shootings occurred last year in jewelry stores, or on any premises with armed security guards?
Why not then, for the love of God, have an armed presence in the schools? It could be done at the cost of a pistol (several hundred dollars), and a few hours of training (that’s all the security guards get). Why not offer teachers, administrators, custodians, a small extra stipend for completing a firearms-safety course and carrying a concealed weapon to school? The arguments to the contrary escape me.”
Tags: David Mamet