Of all possible solutions to a problem, certain American State lawmakers have come up with another fantastic solution to the most rare of problems—the crazed gunman. My friend Jesse sent me this from the New York Times:

In Arizona, known for its gun-friendly ways, state lawmakers are pushing three bills this year focused on arming professors and others over the age of 21 on Arizona campuses. Sponsors talk of how professors and students are now sitting ducks for the next deranged gunman to charge through the classroom door. Some gun rights advocates go so far as to say that grade school teachers ought to be armed as well, although even this state is not ready for that proposition.

By the way, in case no one noticed, the crazed gunman is also armed.

What’s outrageous is that these elected officials, legislators and lobbyists have no issue—but likely great self-interest, money and power-wise—bringing these anti-creative, asinine solutions to a world already constantly creaking with unrest and turmoil (although life day-to-day is pretty darn amazing, don’t you think?)

And some publications don’t even write with ridicule about the arming of teachers as a first-line plan against others carrying guns. Think, by contrast, how the French were ridiculed for protesting against their retirement age being pushed to the nearly-dead age of 62.

Surely having your child’s fourth-grade teach toting a piece could label a society pathologically unsteady. Unless of course this is, say, Northern Uganda where children, for years, were readily and horrifically abducted by a crazed rebel group (built up with the abducted children) called The Lord’s Resistance Army. There the government simply put thousands of families in camps, with limited protection and limited or no provisions, where their abduction was made easier.

But here in the West, if this trend continues, we writers, being crazed pen-men, will also be shot for suggesting things that threaten said Power (or we’ll be simply too intimidated to write anything). Them thar words are violent! Shoot him!

And for the record, will all these gun-toting philosophy professors and fully-armed kindergarten teachers know anything about having a gun, how to use it, how to be safe with it, how to, say, not accidentally shoot their students?

We could have mandatory Gun 101 classes for first year university students, or Armed Combat 11: How to Reload Quickly or How To Get The Mark You Don’t Really Deserve instead of Home Ec, which doesn’t matter, because we can just live off drive-thru, fast-food anyway.

And what about home-schooling? Should parents arm themselves, too? Swimming lessons? Sunday School with classes like Who Would Jesus Shoot? (sorry, Jason!) or How To Be Armed for Allah. Actually both those probably are taught, one here I found in ten seconds on-line (and taking a break) and of course at the Saudi-funded, rabid Wahhabi schools. The Saudis, of course, being good friends with the US Government, and certainly the House of Bush.

You know, we could at least try pushing for an ethos of discernment and kindness, at least among people in our own countries, and then evolve, yes, even beyond that. Have you read comments on-line, in general, lately? People really think they hate each other, and really think they know the answer. Both ideas are profoundly untrue, in my opinion—we just don’t realize it. But as most know, whenever one deeply tries to love another, the other becomes and remains quite wonderfully mysterious—heck, they become three-dimensional, maybe four. Not simply a cardboard cutout enemy via our perceived picture of who they are because of some apparent ideological stance, or less. Think about it.

Arm yourself with love, all the time, no matter how idiotic the people are running more of the show. When the time comes to really fight, all that love will offer intelligent insight. If not, at least you didn’t lead a paranoid life full of hate and ignorance.

Love more!




  1. Karen says:

    Am I reading this article correctly? According to Arizona State Representative Jack Harper, if we all carry guns there will be less crime, and according to the Arizona State Senate president Russell Pearce if someone had been at the venue where the Tucson shooting occurred, and was “prepared to take action,” lives could have been saved.

    I won’t even comment on guns in institutions of learning or around young children, but in my humble, perhaps uninformed, opinion, “When law-abiding, responsible adults are able to defend themselves,” innocent bystanders get shot (assuming, of course, Mr. Harper is referring to guns in terms of self defense).

    To Mr. Pearce’s comment, with all respect, I would ask that he define “prepared to take action.”

    To be prepared to “take action” involves hundreds of hours of training, regardless of whether it is with firearms, fists, or first aid afterward. And even with training and continued practice, not everyone is capable of taking action in a legitimate emergency. The average person freezes when they witness an auto accident, or someone bleeding, or even choking. It’s one thing to fire a gun, another to fire at a target shaped like a person, yet another to fire at a living creature, and a quantum leap to fire at another human being. Might I suggest that the average “law-abiding, responsible adults” might freeze under pressure?

    That surely cannot be what Misters Harper and Pearce would want.

    Aiming high caliber love at you and those you love,

  2. Karen, your point wonderfully elaborates on my question. The whole idea is sort of insane, and thus depressing. And I do believe “prepared to take action” means to be armed and prepared to shoot this one in a billion (okay, a hundred million) invader. Meanwhile, 25,000 people are killed a year buy handguns, plenty by accident. I’m not sure where I stand on the right to bear arms—this was said in the constitution for good reason. But arming teachers? Wow. Either way, more push for more security, more frisking, more paranoia, more violence etc.

  3. Karen says:

    I’ll let you decide why the second amendment was included in the US Constitution.

    The second amendment reads: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    I often wonder why that first part of the statement doesn’t get quoted nearly as often as the second part. I guess some folks forget there is great responsibility with freedom.

    While they may not have always lived to the letter of their words, words held enormous power for men like James Madison, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, and they weighed and debated those words very carefully. May I humbly suggest that as anyone reads those words they do the same?

    Karen XO

  4. So interesting. Basically a voluntary, regulated self-armed army/militia to keep the State secure—a far cry from Miss Applebumm toting an AK47 ‘just in case…’ Amazing. And also, a far cry from the MIlitary Industrial Complex that does the supplying etc. etc. etc. for everybody. Thank you for further intellectually arming us with your point.

    Pete x

  5. Desmond says:

    Hello Pete, thank you for a great and informative blog. Your writings have added to my knowledge of the world as we know it. I am currently looking for the a place that I can acquire the documentary: Uganda Rising. Please let me know at my email where It can be procured if you do know as I can find hide nor hair of it. not sure why. Thanks for your help. Desmond

Leave a Reply