Principal: Let Children Protect Themselves With Cans

Since the nation’s public schools are gun-free zones, that makes them plum targets for any crazy looking to get his name in the paper by shooting a bunch of people.

Liberals won’t ever admit that, but they know it or at least subconsciously understand it.

How else to explain the latest bit of nonsense from a government official about protecting children in schools?

According to the Associated Press, an Alabama middle school principal has come up with the brilliant plan of letting children throw canned goods in the event of a violent intruder as a means of self-defense.

Why do I get an image of Ewoks throwing rocks at Imperial walkers?

W.F. Burns Middle School Principal Priscella Holley sent home a letter to parents last week asking for students to bring in an 8-ounce canned good to contribute to the communal defense.

Really.

“We realize at first this may seem odd; however, it is a practice that would catch an intruder off guard,” she wrote.

At least she realizes it’s odd. That’s the first step to getting treatment.

As Holley unfolded her plan, “The canned food item could stun the intruder or even knock him out until the police arrive.”

Considering that most kids don’t have great aim, it could also just really tick him off. But continue. …

“The canned food item will give the students a sense of empowerment to protect themselves and will make them feel secure in case an intruder enters their classroom.”

So we’re seeking to empower (buzzword alert — could college professors be involved?) the children by arming them … with a can.

The county Superintendent Kelli Hodge apparently knew all about the can initiative and informed the AP that school staff had been working on emergency response training with the Auburn University Department of Public Safety. (Bingo. Knew there had to be college “scholars” in there somewhere.)

The whole canned weaponry concept raises a number of questions. (Note how I avoided using the phrase “opens a can of worms” — which while not normally a food item would make a pretty decent projectile. I think that means I’m growing, as a person.)

For instance, school officials say the cans will be stored in a classroom. But will they be in a locked can safe? Will the cans include some sort of locking lid guard safety device?

If our goal is to empower students, shouldn’t they be allowed to open carry a can of peaches? Or will there be a permit requiring some sort of background check? Will some areas of the school still be “can-free zones,” such as for example the bathrooms (primarily because taking food into a public restroom is just gross)?

What about reasonable restrictions on certain types of cans? It’s only common-sense to restrict the length of cans, as well as the diameter of a can’s “barrel.” Obviously, there should also be restrictions on capacity. Nobody needs two dozen peaches to take down an armed shooter. Six should be enough to get the job done.

guns

Just because we’re arming our kids, doesn’t mean we have to forget reason. There should be an absolute ban on assault fruits and vegetables. Your small-caliber veggies like peas and diced carrots are fine, but there is no excuse for things like whole beets or potatoes. Those have no other purpose than to kill — or to serve as a side dish.

If we’re serious about doing this, then the children will need training in proper can use. The last thing we need to see is more innocent children hurt when some pop-top can of asparagus accidentally goes off in their faces.

But this could work. Add the weaponized can strategy to the White House’s advice of attacking an intruder with a stapler and then wetting yourself, young Americans will have a potent arsenal with which to defend themselves and their communities the next time the gun-free perimeter is breached.