Guns and gates are only ok for black and Jewish kids

Oh. My. God. A uniformed adult with a gun. How will they ever cope? Photo: Star Tribune

If a particular institution is repeatedly targeted for violence, common sense says to do something effective, immediately. If armed intruders are breaking into houses, despite hand-wringing about “social dislocation”, people get locks and bars. When vehicular terrorists are treating public spaces like an Islamic carnival ride, for all the wailing about “colonialism”, the bollards go up without second thought.

Such logic, though, doesn’t apply to the media-generated sense of emergency over school shootings (which are, in fact, trending steadily downward). The commonsense proposal for a trained, armed presence in American schools has been met with wall-to-wall pearl-clutching about its “traumatising” effect.
David Cole, on the other hand, knows exactly what it’s like to attend a “militarised” school.

I attended majority black L.A. public schools … during the first half of the 1980s, when the crack epidemic was in full swing, and black gangs … ruled the streets of “black L.A.”.

Gates’n’guns were the norm for poor black kids in LA, just as they are now for many Jewish kids in Europe. Yet the (predominantly white, middle-class) left never said a word about. Apparently it only matters when it’s middle-class white kids.

I don’t have a single story to tell about on-campus violence. Not one … Why? Because the campuses of my junior high and high school were always on lockdown. There were only a few designated entry and exit points, and armed security officers stood at both.

According to the likes of CNN and the Democrats, his fragile soul should have been shattered.

Not only did the gates and guns not scar my precious little peer group of white and Jewish kids, but in fact, we found the security reassuring. We’d have been the first to complain had some blubbering leftist hag come on campus screeching about how “schools are not a place for guns and chained doors!”

… How can I possibly relate to the howling harridans of white suburbia who bemoan turning schools into “armed compounds”? For six years that was my life, and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. Just the opposite; the “gates ’n’ guns” policy made perfect sense to me, my friends, and our parents.

Not only will heightened security not scar White America’s precious infants, but – while not the ultimate answer – it will go a long way to curbing school shootings in the short term.

maybe one day we’ll hit upon a perfect one-size-fits-all answer. But as we debate, let’s at least acknowledge something that everyone … knows to be true … teens are prone to fads, which is because teens are very, very stupid. They are tiny-brained, feebleminded followers who rarely think things through and have not yet grasped notions like “consequences.”

The effect of “social contagion” is well known to psychologists. Journalists are subject to strict ethical guidelines in reporting suicide, for instance. Yet, the same journalists will salaciously parade the name and face of a school shooter, providing an instant anti-hero to impressionable teens.

What’s necessary at the moment is to stop the fad, slow the trend, halt the cycle of shootings. If that means that a generation of poor widdle kiddies has to go to school with gates and guns (as I did), so be it …

… I would add that, along with being stupid and impressionable, teens are also very, very cowardly. The idea of engaging in a firefight with someone they know will shoot back is probably unappealing to most of them. Teens only find courage in large groups or when their opponent is helpless … Plus, along with being stupid, impressionable, and cowardly, teens are also preternaturally lazy. Nobody shirks hard work like a teen, so a few physical obstacles might not be a bad idea.

As it happens, a friend of mine similarly spent a year at LA High in the 1980s. When I sent him this article, his immediate response was:

Jebus effing criminy, that’s perfect. My year at LA high was exactly that. And it worked.



Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

Who is Lushington D. Brady?

Well, a pseudonym. Obviously.

But the name Lushington Dalrymple Brady has been chosen carefully. Not only for the sum of its overall mien of seedy gentility, reminiscent perhaps of a slightly disreputable gentlemen of letters, but also for its parts, each of which borrows from the name of a Vandemonian of more-or-less fame (or notoriety) who represents some admirable quality which will hopefully animate the persona of Lushington D. Brady.

To read my previous articles click on my name in blue.