Ron Paul Against Armed Teachers, Police In Schools
Former GOP primary presidential candidate and U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) issued a statement on his U.S. House of Representatives website page which opposes the National Rifle Association's suggestion that armed police or teacher be placed in schools, but also opposes more gun control. The full text of his statement follows:
Government Security is Just Another Kind of Violence
by Dr. Ron Paul
The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Connecticut
already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including
restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free
zones.
Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with
emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but
misguided. The impulse to have government “do something” to protect us
in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well
intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right
laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be
prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that
criminals don't obey laws.
The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in
its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we
put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be
school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped.
While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings,
I don’t agree that conservatives and libertarians should
view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the
solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit
ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America,
meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social
institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot
reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our
fingers and passing laws.
Let’s not forget that our own government policies often undermine
civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality. The president
and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still
advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at
home. U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds
vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are
children, albeit, of a different color.
Obviously I don’t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook
shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our
federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against
violence.
Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police
checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches? We
see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once
proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA
agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided
"security," a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even
endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not
justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.
Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we
want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated
person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is
more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government
cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in
such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim
absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state
control over its citizens’ lives. We shouldn’t settle for substituting
one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty,
not to pursue unobtainable safety.
Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the
Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of
citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is
easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but
liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and
we will be safer for it.