Saturday, December 22, 2012

The NRA - sneer along with Jonathan Kay

Jonathan Kay’s column "The NRA’s monstrously stupid plan to put gun-toting guards in every school" was printed as an editorial in today’s National Post. [Here’s the NRA statement.]

As is typical of many of Jonathan Kay’s "arguments", he relies heavily on sneering, sanctimony and strawmen.

Kay writes: "...the National Rifle Association (NRA) has come forward with a truly batty idea for keeping American schools safe: posting a gun-armed sentry in every schoolhouse in the nation."
[Batty? At first glance, it seems quite practical and affordable.]

Kay: "... [the NRA’s notion that] protecting America can be accomplished simply by getting as much firepower as possible into the hands of "good guys." The very notion that a population can be divided into "good" and "bad" in any useful way is itself problematic, since many of the country’s most notorious killers were unknown to police before striking."
[Don’t be so obtuse, Jon. The NRA isn’t proposing to identify ALL the good guys and ALL the bad guys. The people the NRA identifies as possible armed guards seems like a pretty good first-cut suggestion for who could effectively greet would be killers when they show up at the schoolhouse door (self-identify).]
Kay: "Mr. LaPierre envisages an alternate plan that relies on citizen volunteers instead of police. ... The people most likely to volunteer for such a program are ... the sort of hotheads who we often see on cable news, pleading "stand your ground" defences after shooting first, and asking questions later."
[Another dopey strawman. The NRA isn’t proposing to do the selection of guards from a list of volunteers. Almost certainly that would be done by the local school officials and police who know their communities.]
Finally, the NRA’s statement was not intended as the be-all, end-all solution to the problem but an answer to the question: What can be done, "... starting right now ..." to protect school kids from the immediate threat (copy-cats, etc)? "There’ll be time for talk and debate later."

Jonathan Kay’s column is a hyperbolic, knee-jerk reaction to a reasonable proposal from an organization he detests to begin with.


WTF said...

As pointed out by many other bloggers posting armed security or police in schools is exactly what Bill Clinton did after another shooting spree in a school. Obama eliminated those programs. J Kay is a usful idiot period and doesn't deserve the link.

Anonymous said...

As I have said elsewhere, first we should go after video games. If the schools asked parents at the beginning of each semester to pledge not to have video games in their home, imagine the change in the culture. If they had contests for the most books read and gave reading lists for some books for (gasp!) the summer, as they used to do when I was young, perhaps we could counter the peer pressure to play video games and become expert at them. It is the peer pressure that defeats all but the most determined parents because your child can always go to someone else’s house to play and of course wants to be accepted by his peers.

As a side effect, I’m sure education scores would go way up as children read more and spend more time outside playing.

But this of course will not happen as schools and parents won’t make the effort. They want government to do something. Well, if there was any leadership in Washington, there would be a national campaign to have schools encourage parents to sign such a pledge and see educational results rise and the culture improve for our young people.

Anonymous said...

New age preogressives like Jon Kay depise strength and worship weakness.

I mean look at who Kay is:

1) He is a man who, it is possible may have used family influence to achieve what he has in life. ("I'm going to be a journalist when I grow up! Just like mommy! Right mommy!?
--"Yes dear, and mommy will help you".

2) He works in a sheltered occupation where all he does is express his opinion on things.
-he doesn't have to actually SOLVE any problems. He simply sits around and pisses all over the solutions that OTHERS present.

In his sheltered, little press room he doesn't have to satisfy angry customers. He doesn't have to worry about producing a product that is better than a direct competitior. He doesn't have to face any dangers in the workplace.
All he has to do is crank out snotty elitism & make himself wealthier.

So when you live a life like this you might - down deep - realize that you are a weak, worthless fop with delicate, well manicured hands. You would probably resent anyone who has the courage and strength to defend themselves in a crisis situation.

You would probably be so resentful that you would not want those people to ever get the chance to act in a manner that makes you appear weaker by comparison. So anything you can do to weaken them and reduce them to your weak, slimy self absorbed, cowardly level would be something you would be in favour of.

Alain said...

Kay's choice of adjectives show him for what he is: closed-minded and bigoted against gun owners. I have a better idea for him which is to ban criminals and murderers. Oh gee, I forgot that they are already banned, but it hasn't eliminated them.

JR said...

It's too bad some Jon's mom's good sense hasn't rub off on him (yet). Though love him like a mother must, it must be disappointing for her to see her son's immature sneering progressivism so prominently on displaay.

Thucydides said...

Best way to shut him and his kind up is to simply point out that it took 20 min for the Police to respond (and you can access similar timelines for other mass shootings)

Then simply ask: "So what do you suggest should be done during those 20 minutes?"

Time how fast they change the subject or direct a personal attack against you. Probably @ 20 seconds or less...

Anonymous said...

So .. in order to understand this - who is Jonathan Kay's mother anyway?

Anonymous said...

Barbra Kay - columnist at the National Post - same as Jon Kay -p columnist at the national post.

Pretty short apron strings huh?