“Why do you hate children?”


I am reminded of a recurring pro-Israel meme (and I don’t want to debate this because it’s all propaganda and I simply don’t know which side is more right or wrong) that refugee camps set up after the first Arab-Israeli war, full of what must certainly have been easily assimilated people, were arranged to become really awfully squalid and also permanent specifically because the surrounding states wanted a class of victims they could blame on Israel.

The tactic has become familiar in this country. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can clearly see that “gun free zones” are useless in combating “gun violence,” because they’re guaranteed-safe shooting galleries for any incel* who wants his fifteen seconds of fame. But every time it happens, and doesn’t contain some unacceptable element like an armed individual defending a group, you can expect it to be plastered across the mediasphere like an asteroid strike. You can expect to see lots of planted Bloombergisms blaming the NRA and gun owners as if we were all chomping popcorn and giggling like Beavis. You can expect to be blamed for something that is demonstrably not your fault.

And now that we’ve been gifted with schoolkids who’ve learned it’s fun to run to the cameras like frickin’ trained monkeys and cry on cue, maybe we can expect the tactic to become more useful to the people spreading this bullshit.

What we won’t see is any widespread discussion of what seems to me the obvious question: Since “gun free zones” are so clearly useless for anything except creating helpless targets, why aren’t our beloved protectors abandoning them?

Look that up. Like a train wreck, it’s fascinatingly ugly.

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to “Why do you hate children?”

  1. “Incels” are a problem because humans are a non-monogamous species which believes it should be aggressively promoting and defending monogamy. It would be funny if it weren’t so devastatingly destructive.

  2. John says:

    “Since “gun free zones” are so clearly useless for anything except creating helpless targets, why aren’t our beloved protectors abandoning them?”

    Because the agenda matters. The kids don’t?

    People who can defend themselves can say no with a conviction and a defiant attitude that the helpless of broken will cannot. Willful and able persons are an irritating hindrance. The kids are useful and expendable pawns.

  3. bmq215 says:

    If decades of school shootings have taught us anything it’s that the choice depicted by the cartoon doesn’t matter. At all. The school that the next school shooter chooses is extremely likely to be his own (or the one he previously attended). Regardless of whether armed staff are present.

    Armed staff may well stop him sooner but it’s worth remembering that the first sign of a school shooter is usually a kid getting shot.

  4. Joel says:

    That could be right in some cases, but the point of armed staff is more prevention than response. Not all schools are gun-free zones, and those that aren’t tend not to get into the news – either because they’re not experiencing the problem or because when they do the body count isn’t high enough to please the anti’s and the incident ends in an unacceptable manner.

    People do things – including horrific things – because they expect to profit in some way. So what would an adolescent misfit loser (not judging: I was one. I just had a conscience, and wasn’t on Zoloft.) see as a profitable outcome to bringing Dad’s shotgun to school and ending some of the popular kids? I’m thinking it would be the sight of people screaming and running, and the chance to feel like Godzilla for a few minutes, right? But what if the last kid who tried that got popped in the head by the Home Ec teacher and never got his name or face in the news? Could be wrong, but I’m thinking that might serve as a possible disincentive.

    One thing I think we can agree about: Providing whole buildings full of helpless screaming targets and then immortalizing the shooters in the news isn’t working well – if the objective is to stop the shootings.

  5. Kentucky says:


    An article that totally demonstrates the fact that “the agenda” has to be carefully managed. Describing an 870 shotgun as “not for hunting birds” in an effort to convert it to an “assault weapon” to meet the agenda is simply beautiful. Scary, ignorant, downright evil of course, but beautiful in its attempt to “manage” the story. They never give up.

To the stake with the heretic!