CNN.com:

Washington (CNN)CNN commentator and former Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Rick Santorum on Sunday suggested students protesting for gun control legislation would be better served by taking CPR classes and preparing for active shooter scenarios.

“How about kids instead of looking to someone else to solve their problem, do something about maybe taking CPR classes or trying to deal with situations that when there is a violent shooter that you can actually respond to that,” Santorum said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Santorum’s comments came a day after protesters assembled at March for Our Lives events in Washington and across the country to demand gun control legislation in the wake of the deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida.
Santorum dismissed the usefulness of “phony gun laws” and appeared to call on students and others to improve their communities and to prepare to respond to further shootings instead of calling for new laws.
“They took action to ask someone to pass a law,” Santorum said. “They didn’t take action to say, ‘How do I, as an individual, deal with this problem? How am I going to do something about stopping bullying within my own community? What am I going to do to actually help respond to a shooter?’… Those are the kind of things where you can take it internally, and say, ‘Here’s how I’m going to deal with this. Here’s how I’m going to help the situation,’ instead of going and protesting and saying, ‘Oh, someone else needs to pass a law to protect me.'”
Does Rick Santorum ever stop making stupid remarks?  Apparently not.
Santorum acts like the students of America are asking for a handout–not to be shot and killed while they attend school.  What planet is he from?  Thought it was the official job of adults to protect kids until they achieved adulthood.  Where are Santorum’s family values.
It seems that some conservatives and the NRA have declared war on kids.

7 Thoughts to “Rick Santorum: Perhaps the dumbest remark of all”

  1. NorthofNokesville

    Rhetorically, Santorum and others are playing a losing game. And the truth of some of their statements doesn’t make them less “losing” such as when the NRA told the “kids” they would not be listened to if their classmates were still alive (which is true, but not helpful to point out).

    And bringing facts to an emotionally tense and understandably traumatic issue doesn’t do much good, either. Gun violence has declined in the US for many years, and the recent upticks have been largely poor-on-poor and black-on-black incidents in Chicago or Baltimore. Much of the gun control being talked about doesn’t touch those cases (already illegal activity, illegal guns, etc). Suicides are also responsible for 2/3 of all deaths by firearms in the US, so it’s an open question as to whether guns laws help there. Someone bent on committing suicide has a lot of means to that end.

    The antics and stridence of the kids being put into the media spotlight are sometimes annoying, but more often born out of youth and lack of anything approaching full context. Rather than rushing headlong into the emotional fray (which is a losing tactic), a better approach would be to acknowledge what they’re doing (raising issues in an emotionally vivid and raw way) while putting those issues into larger frames. The simple, gut reaction made-for-Twitter answers are rarely right, and often create additional problems. But the snark and dismissal from the right plays the same way.

    1. NorthofNokesville,

      I see it a little differently. Let me first say, I don’t want to round up everyone’s guns. I would consider myself a moderate.

      I have been very impressed with what these kids have been able to accomplish. Have I gotten a little tired of listening to screeching teenagers? You betcha. However, I respect what they are doing and their right to do it. I can always turn down the volume.

      The problem is, school shootings continue to happen. Kids are sitting ducks. Young, disturbed, individuals continue to obtain guns capable of mass destruction.

      These kids have some great ideas. Even if one person is saved, is it worth curbing the mass sale of military style weapons? I don’t even want to eliminate the sale of these types of weapons. I want a little more control over who gets to buy them. I have no problem requiring a person to demonstrate competency as a requirement to purchase. I also have no problem having a security clearance for a person to purchase such a weapon. I also would bump the age up to 21 or still better, 25. I also have no problem with waiting periods. You know, if its good enough to have waiting periods for abortion, then its good enough for buying a gun that is capable of killing many people in under a minute.

      Does this make me anti gun? I sure don’t think so. Again, this question shouldn’t be binary.

      1. NorthofNokesville

        MoonHowler,

        Moon, All fair points (look… a grown up discussion.. on a blog… what is the world coming to). I’m also not a gun purist, on prudential and also constitutional grounds. The Founders reasons for protecting gun ownership were first and foremost as a protection against tyranny, not “mere” self defense. I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about it, but that argument is harder to make now because the power differential between militia and military is huge.

        Here’s a few more issues. 1. Putting additional hurdles in front of potential gun owners doesn’t hit everyone the same. We know that who does the administering of those hurdles matters, and in many cases, women and minorities will face bigger hurdles in practice. 2. Many of the hurdles only have an impact on legal gun transactions. You could end up having lower gun ownership (as otherwise fine buyers say ‘no thanks’ and thus think ‘we’re safer’ while illegal ownership continues. 3. One of the things I found super disturbing in the Florida case was the sheer number of touches law enforcement had with the perpetrator, without apparent impact. 4. Legally, do we jump on the slippery slope of denying a right by putting so many hurdles. If the right to bear arms is a right like freedom of speech… that implies a bias toward permissiveness. If it’s a right like the right to vote, then many on the left would need to argue for no restraint or hurdles, as some argue that asking for identification in the voting precinct hurts certain groups.

        Shorter answer: I don’t know what the right path is.

        On the kids, I suspect most will have gotten their 15 minutes. 1-2 may linger as well-known voices in advocacy. But the love and attention will dry up. High-rolling political allies on both sides are fickle friends.

      2. I expect we will continue to see Emma Gonzoles and Mr. Hogg. Those kids have a special talent and will probably continue to display leadership attributes in all that they do.

        I don’t have an answer either. I just don’t think any right is without limits. There are already restrictions on gun rights: felons, people who have been involuntarily institutionalized, those under a certain age, machine guns, etc. Some 2A people forget about these limits.

        Any time there are implements that can cause mass destruction, there are simply going to have to be restrictions. Those implements just aren’t for everyone.

      3. Yes, imagine having a discussion on a blog without anyone hurling anything…

  2. El Guapo

    At least he was honest. Hey kids, we’re not going to do anything to make you feel safe at school so you should prepare for the next mass shooting.

    1. If enough pre-voters link arms, then some lawmakers are going to be fired in the next year or two. Can they stay focused? That is yet to be seen.

Comments are closed.