So, being disarmed is somehow morally superior?

The Cult of Gun Control seems to have a complete inability to think. They seem incapable of believing anyone has ever used a firearm in self-defense, and incapable of accepting that being disarmed will not stop mass shooters, nor will it save any lives. Take this piece at Medium by Amanda Oliver, a former school librarian in the DC area,  and a woman who simply cannot fathom reality apparently.

In October of last year, the staff at her school thought there was an active shooter. We can imagine the horror she felt, and the need to protect the kids. But listen to her thinking at that moment

Non-teachers don’t know what it means to recognize in one horrible instant that you are all that stands between them and a bullet if the gunmen makes it to you.

But I never wished for a gun that day. I never wished I had a gun to fight back with.

So, what did this librarian wish for to shield these little children from an evil person?

I thought about how many of them my body could cover. I thought about where would be best to hide them and which angle they would be most visible from. I thought about how thick the bookcases were and if they could take a bullet. I thought about the strength of a deadbolt. I thought about the weakness of glass. I thought about what size body could fit through a broken window.

I understand how heroic it would have been to shield these children, to sacrifice herself. Clearly this woman adored these kids. But, would her heroism been in vain? After she took bullets what then? Would the killer have stopped their slaughter? No, the kids still would have still been helpless targets. The rest of her thoughts are understandable. This one though gets me

I never wanted to kill whoever might have been on the other end, though.

I cannot warp my mind around this. If worse comes to worse, why would you not want a weapon to save these kids, and yourself? Where does this thinking come from? Is it somehow morally superior to NOT wish for the best possible defense? Sorry, but  there is nothing immoral about self-defense, or about defending others. I certainly understand never wanting to be put in such a situation, but if you are in that place, why would you think using deadly force  somehow wrong?

Because teachers, more than most others, can recognize a child in anyone. They’re uniquely interested in understanding what might have happened to them to bring them here, from the six-year-old with anxiety, to the teenager with a gun, to the adult with a gun. And I hate that person, that person with a gun, but I also think about how we failed them. Society, parents, schools, mental health providers, child protective services. I think about how someone, or many someones, failed them.

Oh good grief! So, it is better to die, and to let other innocents die because EMPATHY! Sorry, but this woman is denying reality. Idealism is great, but it is winless when it goes up against reality. And this woman is aghast that any teacher might see things differently

I won’t be able to say this the way I want to, but: until we fix all of the very, very fucked up pieces in our society, the best defense we have is stricter gun laws. And for anyone to deny that is absurd. And to arm teachers, to even suggest arming teachers, is such a horrible example of where we’re at.

See, again she worships at the altar of ideally! Do I wish no one, anywhere had to worry about anyone hurting them? Sure, but. again, such a time has never and will never exist.  There always have been, and will be bad people. And it does not matter why they are bad when they are carrying out an act of evil. What matters is preventing, or stopping their actions. And empathy is not going to stop them. Wishing for stronger gun laws will get us nowhere. Enacting such laws will get us nowhere. Blaming inanimate objects will get us nowhere. Pacifism will get us nowhere. And pretending we are morally superior because we worship idealism and place it before reality will only aid those who are intent on committing evil acts. Such thinking is less, rather than more moral.

4 thoughts on “So, being disarmed is somehow morally superior?”

  1. Sure, in pixie dust universe, its the thought that counts. In reality, its the action. Personally, I would like one of these self-righteous pricks and pussies to actually sacrifice themselves in a situation like this ignorant twat describes, but I won’t hold my breath waiting. I think they would be more likely to run and hide, and, if they couldn’t, they would lock the door and provide the killers with whoever was still in the hall. I’m sure the Messiah’s sacrifice wouldn’t even enter their consciousness, but they want everyone to believe they would offer themselves in place of others. No, to a virtue signaling SJW, its all about moral posturing.

  2. WOW. All that Virtue Signaling, and, although a Career Librarian, still possesses such poor grammar as to start a sentence with “And”, ending the same sentence with a poor and clunky .”…where we’re at . ” instead of, “where we find ourselves ” for example.
    Oh , wait. You did say FORMER librarian. I guess she made a career of “shushing” students, whom she secretly wished would be non-saveable in the even of an active shooter scenario in her little gun free zone. Why can’t the killers just obey? Oh, yeah. Killers. Not concerned with violations of law, to include, killing people, bringing forbidden items into a “safe space”, and discharging of a firearm within city limits, not at an area specifically purposed for such activity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s