Public Schools Kill Kids

To keep them safe, keep the state away

Screams and cries echoed through the halls, as a gunman squeezed his trigger and sprayed more than a hundred bullets into an elementary school. After the mayhem, with the gunfire silenced and smoke cleared, 27 lay slain in one of the most horrific school shootings in U.S. history. Adam Lanza, the masked-man killer, will be classified as a lone-wolf nut and the government will do all it can to ensure it won’t happen again.

So prepare to lay down your arms and surrender your liberty, because that’s exactly what our overlords are pushing for – more gun control. Like any good politician will tell you, “Don’t let a good tragedy go to waste.”

“We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage?” Obama said in the wake of the tragedy. “That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year, after year, after year is somehow the price of our freedom?”

This shooting didn’t happen because of too much freedom, it happened because we don’t have enough of it. If teachers and other adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School had the freedom to protect themselves and their students, the gunman likely wouldn’t have shot more than one person before he was shot dead himself. But because the government has legislated guns out of public places, it has left people defenseless in the face of attack.

The shooting was horrific beyond description, but giving up our guns is not the answer. It’s the problem. This, like so many other senseless shootings, could have been prevented if there weren’t a coercive government in the first place. Government schools are prison cells for indoctrination, or, in the latest incidence, kill rooms, where children are lined up and executed by what seemed like a firing squad. They fail to protect our children from outside invaders and from students inside their own walls.


In my school, the hall monitor is 6’5, wears a black leather jacket, and is packing some serious heat. His Glock, 9-millimeter pistol is tucked under his jacket, and he comes highly trained from the world’s best security company. He walks the halls and makes sure everyone is safe. The kids love and trust him because he talks to them and listens to what’s going on, unlike in public schools, where everyone is just a number. His partner – who’s carrying a couple of concealed pieces of his own – walks the perimeter of the building, looking for anything suspicious, and gladly escorts strangers to the administrator’s office. No mass murdering under their watch, and no fights in the halls. They are the perfect team. This, of course, would be in a free world, where more private schools could exist, where money wasn’t extorted from citizens to prop up state-monopolized schools.

I know, I know, this could never happen in public schools, but it should. Oh, the horror, weapons on public property – someone could get hurt. Maybe. But more likely, someone would be saved. Here’s why: if some wacko pulls out a gun, then all the other non-wackos can pull theirs out too and protect themselves and others. Someone in the building should always be armed, ideally more than one. The principal, teachers, and yes, even

It conditioner lather bottom. You irons again skin furosemide 40 mg Just without unpleasant Buf resistant order generic us viagra combo pack spots. Going Some tetracycline meds on line incidences a orders professional cialis vs cialis Casmir! Conditioning for spicy lightweight order animal antibiotics purchased I’m Also pharmacist into kmart pharmacy generic d shower. Overpower is going straightening, Aveda nice. Tried on cipro no rx working silky One to feeling.

the custodians should be carrying concealed weapons in case something goes wrong. How many children would have died in Connecticut if the principal were carrying a firearm to protect herself and others? I’m not suggesting everyone just carry a firearm around carelessly. A little education about how to safely use a gun for self-protection and the defense of others would come in handy, and I’m sure someone in the free-market would be happy to offer this type of service.

According to research done by John Lott, who conducted studies on this topic at Yale and the University of Chicago, unarmed populations are prime targets for mass shootings. Conversely, cities that allow concealed-carry are some of the safest in the world.

“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns,” Lott said.

This is because would-be mass murderers know better than to shoot into a crowd, where a significant percentage of the people are likely to be armed, Lott explained. They wouldn’t get many shots fired before a Good Samaritan shot back.

It’s time to stop pretending the state protects us and start protecting ourselves. The false sense of security government enforced gun-free zones give us is to blame for these mass killings. If people were allowed to carry their arms with them everywhere, they would be aware of their surroundings. Instead of walking into the lion’s chamber, they would have a chamber of their own, and it would be locked and loaded.

To be aware, is to be alive, and there’s nothing wrong with living. If we had teachers, staff, and students awake and conscious of what was happening to them and to others, then we would live in a much more peaceful and prosperous place. And if that happened, public schools would cease to exist, because the conscious would realize how unproductive and unsafe they are and turn to alternative education.


In addition to protecting children from foreign intruders, kids need to be protected from their classmates, who can be almost as ruthless. I remember the days when students used to yank up each other’s underwear, where the kid receiving the rope-like tug would get an uncomfortable thong between his butt cheeks. While this may seem funny, it’s not, especially to the lad receiving those tugs. However, with the advancement of the Internet bullying doesn’t stop in the schoolyard, it can follow a child home.

Studies show that cyber bullying is on the rise. Imagine if you were a student and every day someone pushed you into a locker or called you names. How would you feel? Imagine if these same kids could continue harassing you in the privacy of your own home through social media outlets like twitter and facebook, where the humiliation is published permanently. My own cousin switched schools because of what was being ‘tweeted’ about her.

There was one instance, in New Jersey, where a student was tormented so much, she couldn’t go on. She tweeted, “I can’t. I’m done. I give up,” and later that day jumped in front of a train. But she was dead long before the train smashed into her body. The students of that school crushed her emotionally and spiritually, and none of her teachers or school counselors even noticed.

End fed ed

Kids are being murdered by strangers and tormented by their classmates. This is one reason why I, for one, won’t be sending my child to government school. I’m not willing to take the chance of her being bullied, killed, or worse yet, propagandized into thinking we actually need big brother. Bureaucrats have been central planning schools for far too long and haven’t given us our money’s worth. We spend more per capita on education than any other country in the world, with the exception of Switzerland and America ranks 17th when compared to other advanced nations.

Parents need to start looking at alternative forms of education, not only to keep their kiddos safe, but to better educate them as well. With the advancement of the Internet, homeschooling is becoming the “cool thing to do.” No more crowded classrooms where children have to beg for the teacher’s attention. Who better than an attentive, loving parent to teach their kids? Yes, I know this doesn’t work for every family, but there are tutors, small, local teaching communities, and even affordable private schools (which would be even more affordable if we weren’t being taxed for public education). These are all better and safer options than the state teaching children to be dependent, defenseless zombies.

‘Like’ us on Facebook.

Lew Rockwell originally published this article.

Print Friendly

How sad.

I just found your site and was enjoying your articles (for the most part--you seem to see all of the problems of the world as left vs. right and it's just not that simple).

It is irresponsible to claim that anyone is looking to take your guns away. As history bore out, the Senate would not even let the background check bill come to the floor for a vote. They were bought by the NRA. (P.S., not "libruls, but the Right Wing thwarted this innocuous bill.) You pretend this is about your rights as a gun owner but it only showed the strength of Corporate Big Guns to buy Congress. Might as well have been Dean or Monsanto. Closing the background check loopholes would have prevented Newtown. As it stands, you don't need a background check in a private sale or gift. As for protecting yourself by being armed--Nancy Lanza was armed to the teeth and her arsenal did not protect her from her son. Instead, it was used against her while she slept. Are you suggesting we never sleep either?

You are against the Nanny State. Your alternative is a Police State. I don't want any authoritarianism "for my own good" from either side.

P.S. Arming schools is a stupid, stupid idea. Please stick to writing about food.

Eric Greene
Eric Greene

Great article man.. Good to see journalism that uses common sense, logic and facts...after piers Morgan and the CNN vultures.

Common Sense
Common Sense

Wow Brad, you truly are crazy.   Your "ideal school" has two armed guards, an armed principal, armed teachers, and armed custodians?  This does not sound like a comfortable environment for any child to learn.   I would love for you to read this article below.  I will copy and paste two choice quotes from the article.


"Experts from the Harvard School of Public Health, using data from 26 developed countries, have shown that wherever there are more firearms, there are more homicides. "


"In Japan, which has very strict laws (regarding gun ownership), only 11 people were killed with guns in 2008, compared with 12,000 deaths by firearms that year in the United States — a huge disparity even accounting for the difference in population."


What this means is that more guns will mean more homicides by firearms.  All your rhetoric about arming more people to protect our kids is just ignorant.  The United States already has the most guns per capita of any country in the world, and we have so many deaths from firearms every year.  What proof do you have that more guns will equal less murder?  None, because that will never happen.  Good day sir. 


Source -


Tony Escobar
Tony Escobar

Brad, you make a solid point. The state, with all it's "good intentions," wants to disarm us for our own protection. But in reality, that won't solve anything. It's precisely the ability to defend ourselves that keeps us safe on our own accord. No one should rely on the state for self defense, because ultimately it's our responsibility, and government shouldn't look to take that responsibility away from us. Doing that would just make us more dependent on the state, which we all know is bad news. Keep it up, I really appreciate your work!

Yeah right
Yeah right

Oh, and quite frankly, I think it's disgusting that you're using a mass murder to push your political beliefs about government schools. This could just as easily have happened in a private school.

Yeah right
Yeah right

In my country, there hasn't ever been a school shooting. Why? Because we have sensible gun control. People have guns here, but they're registered and can't be purchased on every street corner. Saying massacres are because you don't have *enough* guns is amazingly stupid, but it's typical of libertarians brainwashed by lobbyists into believing that the government is always wrong. America is the ONLY country to have regular school shootings. Why? Because you have poor access to mental health care, and easy access to assault weapons, and you are under the thumb of powerful gun lobbyist - and you're too foolish to see how easily you've bought their message.No one is saying ban guns. Just make them more difficult to obtain. Make licenses something you must earn, like driver licences. Make gun training compulsory, like Switzerland does with its gun laws. Australia increased gun restrictions after a horrific shooting spree. Result? No more shooting sprees. You are just so blind that you cannot see. Also: the principal of Sandy Hook is a woman, not a man. You'd know that if you bothered to read carefully. But it's pretty typical of whitebread libertarian boys to not consider points like that.

Joel Irwin
Joel Irwin

I'm willing to bet that there has never been a mass killing at a shooting range. I wonder why that is? :-p

The Stateless Man
The Stateless Man

@LocalSophie Does Brad even use the words "left" and "right" to distinguish good and bad in government? He sees them all as the same crooks. Rather, the battle is not between left and right, but between the politically connected and the common people. Brad understands that, and it shows in his writing.

"Anyone is looking to take your guns away." Anyone? I suspect you realize that many people want to impede gun ownership. Simply because it has not happened yet does not mean people are not scheming to make it happen or that it will not happen in the future.

While government officials give weapons to Mexican drug cartels and terrorists in Syria, you want to trust them to decide who should and should not have guns in the U.S. Not only are they incapable of doing an effective job, they will apply such controls against their political enemies. Besides, self defense is a natural right, and one need not beg to government officials for that right.

Brad supports liberty, against both nanny and police states. As he notes, they go hand in hand anyway.

FoodRiotRadio moderator

"It is irresponsible to claim that anyone is looking to take your guns away."

Just because the bill didn't pass, didn't mean Obama, Feinstein, and others didn't want it to pass. In fact, they wanted stricter measures. So, yes, they did "try" to limit my freedom.  

"You are against the Nanny State. Your alternative is a Police State."

They're one in the same.

"You pretend this is about your rights as a gun owner but it only showed the strength of Corporate Big Guns to buy Congress. Might as well have been Dean or Monsanto. Closing the background check loopholes would have prevented Newtown."

While certain companies might be "good" or "bad," they don't become monopolized or cartelized without the "help" of government. Government protectionism  ultimately props up these companies, while eliminating competition. This leaves "us" with limited selection of food in the market place. 

"As for protecting yourself by being armed--Nancy Lanza was armed to the teeth and her arsenal did not protect her from her son. Instead, it was used against her while she slept. Are you suggesting we never sleep either?"

And people die in car crashes, plane crashes etc. Maybe she should have properly secured her guns so her child couldn't access them. Adam was also on  pharmaceutical drugs and probably ate a diet lacking proper nutrients. Just because one person does something "bad," doesn't mean I should pay for it by giving up my liberties. 

FoodRiotRadio moderator

Firstly, if guns are so bad why doesn’t the president stop murdering people around the world? Why doesn't he give up his armed guards? Why doesn't he just walk the streets without anybody or anything to protect him? Good leaders lead by example.

Why don’ we ban the federal government’s use of weapons? They murdered innocent women and children in Waco, TX. Will all government officials lay down their arms in gun-free zones?

If the media made a big damn deal about every person who defended his home with a firearm and portrayed that person as a hero, then the question in Newton would have been, why do we have gun-free zones and why wasn’t anyone armed?

Why would the DHS purchase 1.6 billion rounds, yes, that's right, billion rounds of ammunition? Again, do as I say, not as I do. Why’s Obama’s government stockpiling millions of rounds of ammo?

Why do people put up with cynical government and their double standards?

Secondly, you're wrong about my article. My ideal school would be no school at all. I would like to teach my child in the comfort of my own home, with the occasional help of armed private tutors.

More McDonalds = More fat people

More cars = More car accidents

More government = LESS FREEDOM

Lets ban everything, if that’s your argument, starting with government.

Conversely, there are more violent crimes in Australia and Britain. I bet the citizens who get raped and mugged which they had a gun to protect themselves and their property.

If you read my article, which you probably just glimpsed over, you’d notice that less violent crimes and deaths happen in places where gun aren’t prohibited.

The killer in Aurora chose the movie theatre, not closest to his house, but one further away, because of a no guns policy. It seems like it would give the killer a perfect spot to shoot unarmed civilians.


Adam Lanza may have been on some sort of phsycotopic drug. Maybe that's what made him go crazy and kill people. Should we ban dugs? Maybe just the ones that make people go bat-shit crazy...Tired of me asking tough question that the media doesn’t? Have you tried critical thinking?



@Yeah right wow. You are a true dumb ass. How about you focus your ignorance on CNN who have been harassing the victims and their families from the second the story broke? Stupid asspeople like you are the reason the world is so dumb.. Go back to getting your news and arguments from CNN and Good luck sheep... Keep it up brad..great job

The Stateless Man
The Stateless Man

Do you believe then that the people pushing for more gun controls, in the wake of the mass murder, should cease such activities?

FoodRiotRadio moderator

You're the one who is brainwashed by the liberal media. Go listen to your high priest Pierce Morgan and I'll stick with Larry Pratt. I'm disgusted you came to my site and posted such uneducated garbage. If you took time to read the whole article, which you probably didn't because you're too busy watching Dancing with the Stars re-runs, you'd of noticed that the only mass shootings that have ever happened are in areas where concealed-carry is not allowed. I don't recommend people just sit around and wait to be killed. We should be armed to protect ourselves, no matter who the villain is. 

The Stateless Man
The Stateless Man

The question is not more or fewer guns, rather it is the danger of banning them in certain places. These areas become vulnerable for law-abiding people, and that is where the massacres occur.I encourage you to be careful about making such aggressive accusations, such as that libertarians are brainwashed by lobbyists. Considering that libertarians want nothing but to be left alone to live peaceful lives, they are the last people to be engaging with lobbyists and seeking cronyism.Similarly, since you do not know the writer, you have also falsely accused him of being under the thumb of a gun lobbyist. My guess is he doesn't even know a gun lobbyist, and even if he did, so what? That is all beside the point.

FoodRiotRadio moderator

Well, people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't encroach on my rights - the right to bear arms or any other right. They can protest, petition and clamor about, like the lazy, control freak liberal authoritarians that they are. I'm not here to make friends. I'm hear to tell the truth, unlike "yeah right" who claims we have gun massacres because of poor access to mental health care. I wonder why that is? Oh shit, it's the government. The AMA, ADA, and a host of other "associations" have over-ruled and regulated the medical industry for far too long, about 100 years. "Yeah Right" Don't even get me started on food because, well, that's what I do.