To protect our children, it’s time to outlaw school buses

School bus

A liberal accused me of being un-empathetic — indeed, utterly heartless — because I continue to support the Second Amendment as written and because I think it’s a dreadful idea to ban all guns but for revolvers.  (Incidentally, did you know that the Dunblane shooter got around the problem of a limited bullet capacity by bringing multiple weapons to that small Scottish school?)  The logic was that I could show I cared for the bottomless grief the survivors are suffering only by granting the bereaved parents the balm of doing away with the object that ultimately caused their children’s death.

It occurred to me this morning that, if we ban guns, we must also ban school buses, or at least make them extremely small (no more than two children, at most).  Unlike guns, which tend to inflict harm on a broad variety of people, school buses have a target audience — school children.  School buses have been pretty darn bad news for school children over the years.  The evidence is overwhelming that buses kill, both at home and abroad:

School bus crash

February 28, 1958:  Twenty-six children killed in a school bus crash in Kentucky.

May 21, 1967:  Twenty-eight children killed in a school bus crash in California.

September 22, 1989:  Nineteen children killed in a school bus crash in Texas.

August 6, 2010:  One child killed in a school bus crash in Missouri

April 2, 2011:  One child killed in a school bus crash in Minnesota

September 3, 2011:  One child killed in a school bus crash in Alabama.

September 27, 2011:  Approximately thirty-five children killed in a school bus crash in Pakistan.

November 16, 2011:  Eighteen kindergarteners killed in a school bus crash in China.

December 13, 2011:  Fifteen children killed in another school bus crash in China.

February 16, 2012:  One child killed in a school bus crash in New Jersey.

March 12, 2012:  One child killed in a school bus crash in Indiana.

September 7, 2012:  Two children killed in a school bus crash in Nebraska.

October 30, 2012:  Two children killed in a school bus crash in Kentucky.

November 17, 2012:  Forty-nine children killed in a school bus crash in Egypt.

School bus crash 2

That’s just a short list, but the message is unmistakable:  It’s deadly to consolidate so many young children in a single mobile unit.  Moreover, given that the buses are on the road (dangerous), are out in all kinds of weather (dangerous), have no defenses against other drivers (dangerous), are filled with fuel (dangerous), have limited maneuverability (dangerous), and are often driven by people who are elderly (dangerous) or substance abusers (dangerous) it’s absolutely appalling that we haven’t taken steps to ban school buses or at least to make them so small that the maximum number of children who can be killed doesn’t exceed two or three.

I am, quite obviously, being facetious.  By making this list, I do not mean to minimize the many individual tragedies these school bus deaths represent, nor do I wish to downplay the tragedies of school shootings.  I am simply pointing out that many things in this world are dangerous, but we accept these risks because they come paired with utility.

Parents like school buses because they save parents’ time or because they make school attendance possible where the absence of a bus might have made it impossible.  Greenies like school buses because even one dirty bus produces less CO2 than dozens of cars making the daily trek to and from schools.  We do what we can to make buses safe, but we recognize that bad luck, weather conditions, drunk or careless drivers, heart attacks, malfunctioning train crossings, etc., all mean that every time we load our children onto the bus there’s the chance they won’t come home.

Like buses, guns serve a utilitarian purpose.  The Second Amendment recognizes the most fundamental purpose, which is to protect us from our own government.  I can’t know for certain, but I’m willing to bet that the citizens in North Korea would love to be armed.

While Leftists fear corporations, they seem to have missed entirely the fact that there is no entity more dangerous than an absolute government.  No corporation has ever managed to kill or imprison tens of millions of its own citizens.  In the 20th Century alone, though, dictators who disarmed their citizens easily managed to do so in places as diverse as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Cambodia, Cuba, North Korea, and enormous chunks of Africa and South America.

LRA victim

Aside from protecting people against the single greatest threat to their lives and freedom, guns also protect people from the threat of bad individuals:  robbers, rapists, gang bangers, crazy people, and other random killers.  The statistics are completely consistent:  provided that the armed society is a genuine democracy, more guns mean less crime.  The biggest deterrent to gun crime isn’t disarmament, it’s a healthy culture.  In America our culture is medium healthy.

One of the factors we can’t control and that is, for the most part, a good thing, is our diversity.  For hundreds of years, we have welcomed people from all over the world into America.  They bring their cultural norms and their prejudices.  Up until political correctness came along, we tried to smooth all these diverse people into a single American identity, which may have helped keep crime down.  Now, we don’t bother, so that people can cling to the violent habits and hostilities they brought from their home countries.

Another factor is the unending diet of movies, TV shows, music, and games that tell people — especially impressionable young people — that using guns for murder sprees is cool and fun.  Ironically, this “entertainment” originates with Progressives who are thrilled about pretend guns, hate real guns, and can’t deal with the fact that their fantasies affect ordinary people’s realities.

Pulp Fiction

Putting aside civil rights and culture, we also have to be realistic when it comes to guns:  there is no way on earth that we can have an effective gun ban in America.  Ban legal guns, and you just end up with millions of illegal guns.  Think about this:  if we can’t stop 180 pound males from crossing our southern border daily on a regular basis, and we are completely unable to stem the tide of marijuana and cocaine that crosses that same border, how in the world do those who want to ban guns think we’re going to stop the flow of weapons from Latin America into America?  The only thing a gun ban would do would be to ensure that the bad guys are armed and the good guys (who far outnumber the bad guys) are not.

I’ve also heard gun owners called cowardly.  Leftists just think it’s unfair for a good guy to have more fire power than a bad guy.  That’s why American troops weren’t allowed to use their strength and training to overwhelm al Qaeda.  Asymmetrical warfare is “unfair,” regardless of the fact that the under-armed bad guy is malevolently evil, while the “over-armed” good guy will save hundreds of thousands of lives if he is given free rein to use his weapons advantage.


In martial arts, we’re taught that, if we’re in a genuinely dangerous situation, there are no rules for disabling an attacker.  The martial artists I know, most of whom are liberals, would fall on the floor laughing if someone said “Come on, guys.  If you’re attacked by a big guy who doesn’t know martial arts, you shouldn’t use all your skills against him because that wouldn’t be a fair fight.”  When life and death are involved, fair flies out the window.  In the same way, it’s laughable to say that it’s cowardly for gun owners to shoot at someone who “started the fight” by breaking into their home, trying to choke them, or car jacking them.

If I were king of the world, I would make gun safety classes mandatory in all public schools.  They’d be like driver ed classes:  the students wouldn’t actually handle weapons, but they would be taught about their benefits and dangers, and they’d have drilled into them rules for handling guns safely.  Instead, of being forbidden fruit made enticing by the Hollywood media, they’d be viewed, quite appropriately, as useful (and sometimes fun) tools, in exactly the same way as cars and school buses.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Jose

    If the lefties were to succeed in outlawing civilian gun ownership, they would then have to figure out how to protect school children from terrorists.  Think Beslan, or the school attacks in Afghanistan.  Israel has already found the solution by arming school staff and volunteers.
    “…the Dunblane shooter got around the problem of a limited bullet capacity by bringing multiple weapons”
    BTW, the vernacular for dropping an empty gun and drawing another is know as a “New York reload”.

  • JKB

    Actually, a gun ban would probably work for like Prohibition did.  It would create a society of people who violate the law.  And there is a real slippery slope argument with that.  
    For a good real world example of the real problem with these mass killings read BLACKFIVE: Gun Control vs. Teh Crazy  Guess what the cause is?  One of those fine Progressive policies.  The one for turning the mentally ill to live homeless on our streets.  
    I strongly support Gun Proofing children.  That is teaching them about real guns, how to handle them, how they are different than toys and what is seen on TV and movies.  Then if they are exposed (unattended) to a gun they know how to act…responsibly.  If they must touch it, they know how.  If another kid touches it, they know when the handling is dangerous and what to do.  Much like “Don’t talk to strangers” “Don’t touch guns” leaves the child at a loss in the real world when their idea of a stranger or their curiosity about guns confronts one in real life.

  • JohnC

    Sen. Joe Manchin (Dem, WV) is saying he wants to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban.
    “I just came with my family from deer hunting,” Manchin said on MSNBC. “I’ve never had more than three shells in a clip. Sometimes you don’t get more than one shot anyway at a deer. It’s common sense. It’s time to move beyond rhetoric. We need to sit down and have a common-sense discussion and move in a reasonable way.” Mr. Manchin made no mention of specific restrictions like his fellow Democrats have, he only referred to gun use in terms of hunting and sport and not self-defense. “I want to call all our friends in the NRA, sit down and have this discussion,” he said. “Bring them into it. They have to be at the table. We all have to,” Manchin explained. He later added, “I don’t know anyone in the hunting or sporting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” he said. “I don’t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about.”
    This whole thing about 30 round magazines and hunting –
    I don’t have a 30 round mag for hunting. I have it to help insure that I can out-gun anyone who tries to harm my family or myself. When I slam in the mag and charge the weapon I want to have as many shots available as possible before the rifle becomes useless. I want to drive away or kill the bad guy. I don’t want to have a fair fight. I want to win. Period. It’s for killing humans. I’m completely willing to admit that. That’s what it was designed for and it’s capable of doing it very well. I hope and pray I never ever have to use it against a human being (I’m sure I would throw-up afterwards) but I want the option available. I’m actually a tiny bit scared by it but it’s a respectful fear of it’s capabilities and I treat it accordingly. It’s a tool. A very dangerous tool to be sure but still a tool. Just like a wood-chipper, an oxy-acetylene torch, a chainsaw, or any other inherently dangerous piece of equipment. Handle it foolishly and it will kill me. Treat it with respect, learn to operate it properly and it will work for me.
    To sum up, people who want to take my rifle are basically saying ‘What are you doing? You are too irresponsible and/or stupid to be trusted with such power. Give that to us before you hurt yourself!’ That’s what I hear, anyway.

  • MacG

    “Come on, guys.  If you’re attacked by a big guy who doesn’t know martial arts, you shouldn’t use all your skills against him because that wouldn’t be a fair fight.”  
    Of course that is also counter to what most every liberal says is the foundation of life – evolution and survival of the fittest.
    In San Rafael after Columbine all officers are trained as first responders.  To wit a few years ago we had a gunman running loose in San Rafael.  When he stopped on Anderson Avenue the first office was able to respond with an AR15 round from 90 yards and drop the guy rather than waiting around for the swat team and give the guy a chance to get away.  Which would have the sporting thing to do I guess…That is really what the above liberal position is. It seems that they are coming from the point of view of it is a sporting event.  Let’s make it fair cuz we would not want to hurt anyone’s feelings and everyone gets a trophy.  
    The only time that fairness idea was funny was when my mom made my dad play pool against her with a pencil instead of cue stick because he was so much better at that game.

  • Karl

    It would be much harder to shoot up a school full of kids if home schooling were the norm. 
    Time to ban schools?

  • neocon hippie

    It’s interesting that since the 1989 crash that American bus crashes have had far fewer fatalities than in Pakistan, China. or Egypt. I wonder why…

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Getting Ready For Christmas Edition()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Getting Ready For Christmas Edition » Virginia Right!()

  • Pingback: This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations |

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Getting Ready For Christmas Edition |

  • Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Getting Ready For Christmas Edition()

  • Pingback: GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels Nominations — 12.19.12 Edition()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • beefrank

    Bookworm.  Excellent analogy regarding the school buses.  The irony is that federal regulations mandate  where, when and how our children are place in a specialized, three-point harness seat anchored to the rear seat of our personal crash-tested SUVs, minivans, sedans and trucks but we relinquish them to be crowded onto nonbelted bench seats aboard a flimsy framed yellow vehicle equipped with flashing lights,  movable guard rails driven usually by a retired-age driver with unknown skills.  It is why my children were always driven to school in our vehicles.  Parents should value their children greater than the Hope diamond.  Obama’s children benefit from an armed detail who chauffeurs them to school.  The least I can do is protect my children similarly and I would appreciate it if the school would consider to value them as much.

  • Pingback: Watcher Council Nominations Are Up! | Independent Sentinel()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Getting Ready For Christmas Edition | askmarion()

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council wisdom for the week()

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results()

  • Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 12/21/12()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results: TRP Wins First Place! |

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » Watcher’s weather Mayan Apocalypse!()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Winners! | Independent Sentinel()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | askmarion()

  • Pingback: Rhymes With Right()

  • Pingback: Gun Control – Disarming The People | The Town Crier()