I was prepared to dislike this article before I read it. I
think the word “untrained” was missing from the headline I first saw that
directed me to the article so I was expecting it to be an argument against
having firearms in schools. It turned out to be different than that.
I’ve advocated here for getting rid of the ridiculous so-called
“gun free zones” and arming people in our schools. I believe both are the right
things to do to provide additional safety against premeditated violent attacks
on school children. Armed, full-time security is okay but it’s expensive, not
fiscally possible in many schools and doesn’t solve the whole problem. A single
uniformed guard simply becomes the first target in an assault.
I believe that in addition to arming administrators, staff
or teachers, we should allow parents with concealed carry licenses (CCL) to be
armed in schools too. They might be volunteering for the day, conducting
business there, or dropping off or picking up their kids. For those parents I
think a CCL should be enough. Their purpose is not to be armed security. It’s
simply to be law abiding citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment
rights who may, someday, need to do so to protect themselves or others. I would
be willing, however, to add an additional training requirement if there was a
reasonable way to enforce it that does not violate privacy, like additional registration
with the school, for example. There are too many incidents of records like that
being misused.
For school staff, I’ve mentioned that they potentially
should have training requirements as is discussed in this article. I think that
if they’re willing to accept the responsibility for being armed they should be
financially compensated in a small way, similar to coaching in addition to
teaching. I also think the school district should be willing to pay for
whatever training requirements they deem necessary. Fortunately, there are some
training providers who offer their courses, worth thousands of dollars, for
free to teachers with a simple contract with school districts administrations.
Costs would be much less if all they’re paying for is ammunition, transportation,
lodging and per diem. School districts could decide for themselves if they were
satisfied with simple range qualification, or a one-time defensive shooter
course, or recurring requirements on a given schedule as argued for in this
article. The author makes some good points about range qualification vs.
defensive shooting and about the effects of adrenaline, etc. They all ring true
to me. But what rings even louder is that an armed presence is a first line of
defense and may be the last line of defense too. Anything is better than the
nothing that most schools have now. Yes, there are some schools with better
physical properties, so maybe it’s not a true ‘nothing’ currently. But only an
armed response can force an armed, determined attacker to submit or die. And if
any adult, whether a school resource officer, staff member or parent, dies or
is injured in defense of dozens of innocent school children then it’s probably
worth the investment. After all, didn’t our nation’s leader say that ‘if there’s
anything we can do to save even one life, we’ve got to try’?
I would not advocate for school districts purchasing
handguns. I haven’t even seen that suggested yet but someone out there probably
thinks it’s a good idea. I have seen suggestions of purchasing AR-15s and
keeping them locked within the schools for use by school staff or school
resource / security officers.
No comments:
Post a Comment