There is a growing trend in a lot of places. They’re starting to take bleed kits seriously and including them and training on how to use them in a lot of public schools.
Unsurprisingly, some people are displeased by this.
For them, these kits are a sign of something else, namely that lawmakers are skirting the actual problem. They think the only reasonable solution is gun control.
After all, school shootings are what sparked this whole thing to start with, right?
No one could rationally oppose Missouri Gov. Mike Parson’s announcement this month of $50 million in state safety grants for schools. Who would be against improved school infrastructure, immediate access to medical equipment and other precautions to keep kids safe?
Still, did the Republican governor pause at all as his office outlined some of the details of the grants — like “physical security upgrades” and “bleeding control kits”?
These once-novel concepts have become staples in U.S. schools today for one reason: school shootings have become an almost routine phenomenon in America, driven by the flood of unregulated firearms throughout society. It’s a phenomenon enabled by the stubborn refusal of Parson’s party, in Missouri and nationally, to allow even the lightest, most commonsense restrictions on guns.
That Parson and his fellow Republicans who control this state recognize the crisis enough to provide funding for bleeding control kits, while still refusing to take simple steps that would prevent the bleeding in the first place, speaks volumes about the depth of their dedication to America’s destructive gun culture.
And just what would they want?
The big push we have regarding school shootings is, of course, an assault weapon ban. That’s unsurprising following incidents like Uvalde.
But did everyone forget Virginia Tech?
That shooting involved two handguns, bought at a time when the state still had a gun rationing scheme on the books.
While we know anti-gunners might like to ban handguns as well, they’re not going to be able to do it. Not without a very, very different Supreme Court.
So just how do they propose we make school shootings disappear entirely?
On the other hand, there are tons of situations where bleed kits could be incredibly useful. Schools, for example, have lots of glass. One bad tumble could result in not just a broken window but a nasty bleed.
Bleed kits, allow people there to get the bleeding under control so as to save lives.
There’s also no requirement they be kept exclusively for school use. A car accident near the school, for example, might well require the use of a bleed kit and save lives.
The truth of the matter is that these bleeding control kits should have been in schools decades ago. People should routinely carry tourniquets with them and have been trained on how to use them. The reason is that nasty injuries that require that kind of treatment can happen at any time.
So, since we can’t pass a law or two and suddenly make mass shootings at schools a thing of the past, why not put the tools and skills in there so that if anything happens, people can save lives, even if it’s not something that will make the headlines all over the nation?
Or would the writers above prefer children to die just so they can make a point?