Originally, I published a blog post back in 2012 that addressed the talking points in the title of this rather long missive. That essay followed the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The issues of gun control, gun free zones, and arming school staff were front and center topics of discussion following that massacre. All three talking points were, and still are, serious school safety issues. Since that time, there have been I don't even know how many more mass shootings both in schools and in public venues.
In light of all those massacres, I felt it would be appropriate to revisit my original post and to revamp and revise it accordingly. The more I studied it, the more I realized it really needed an almost complete re-write. In that vein, here's the amended/re-written version. I hope it's better than its predecessor.
With that, I offer these observations.
Observation 1....Gun Control:
The issue of 'gun control' perhaps shouldn't be presented as an issue at all. The term 'gun control' is really nothing more than a play on words, a misuse of semantics if you will. In fact, pro-gun advocates tout gun 'control' as being how well they can control the weapon while aiming and firing that weapon. Now THAT's twisted semantics if ever there were any!
There are quite a few folks who advocate for 'gun reform', but an even better term might be 'gun regulation'. After all, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes reference to a 'well regulated militia', does it not?
The meme above purports that back in the day when the 2nd Amendment was written flintlock muskets only fired one ball at a time with serious reloading time and effort required in between shots. While some would argue the 600+ cyclic rate for an assault style weapon is inaccurate, the implied message is that we're talking apples to oranges with past technology vs today's more advanced technology.
While that is true for the most part, there were repeating muskets in existence at the time of our Founding Fathers. Surprised? I know I was.
 |
| NRA Family - Throwback Thursday: Isaiah Jennings Repeating Flintlock Rifle |
The rifle in the photo above, my friends, is a genuine Isaiah Jennings All-Metal Flintlock Rifle capable of 12 shots without reloading. Pretty advanced technology, eh? Well, perhaps it was for the time anyway.
That being said, it's also of interest to note, the author of the article I'm sharing here, A Close-up Look at the Ellis-Jennings Repeating Flintlock Rifle, shows a little different design than the one above....sort of like 'new and improved' perhaps?
While the author didn't go specifically into how fast these repeating muskets fired, a round per two second rule might not be too much of a stretch. While I've never been accused of being a mathematical genius, extrapolating that out to one minute translates into 30 rounds per minute not including reload time according to my calculation. A safer bet might be a whole lot fewer rounds per minute given gunpowder was used for each round, and I think you get the point.
Several authors in the article, What is the firing rate of an AR-15, assert rate of fire depends largely on expertise of the individual using the weapon. Depending on accuracy desired, rate of fire can range from as low as 12 rounds per minute for sustainable more accurate firing up to 100 rounds per minute for more skilled shooters. A semi-skilled shooter could fire at a rate of 60 rounds per minute according to one author. Bottom line is these early repeating rifles maximum delivery rate is still a very far cry from the maximum delivery rates of an AR-15.
Add to that the fact none of the authors I've researched placed any degree of reliability or accuracy with any of the early repeating rifles, and we have a sort of a conundrum. The author did say, "Very few have survived, for what I would consider obvious reasons", so, perhaps this solves that conundrum, eh?
Bottom line? In this instance the 'whataboutthis' argument used by so many pro-gun advocates to dismiss the 'technology' position when it comes to weaponry then vs now has no merit, nor does it have any validity in reality.
The two technologies, the flintlock repeating musket and the AR-15 semi-automatic assault style rifle, have one thing, and one thing only, in common that I can see....they both have a 'repeating' capacity.
And, for the record, the reason I'm even mentioning the repeating flintlock musket is because a pro-gun advocate on a Facebook page I follow tried to use this primitive weapon as his example in a comment on someone else's post of how the AR-15 is not new technology....that a repeating function was in existence when the 2nd Amendment was adopted. While that may be true in a literal sense, that's also the point at which any other comparisons render that position moot.
I do not claim to be anywhere near a gun 'expert'. Never have been. Am not now. Never will be. But I am willing to learn by doing relevant research. My research leads me to believe the general message of the meme at the beginning of this blog post is valid and remains relevant as far as I'm concerned....that we are comparing apples to oranges when talking about era appropriate technology. We can nitpick on details of the technology, but the underlying message of the meme is not altered by any of that in any way, shape, or form.
The 2nd Amendment has pretty much been beaten to death by both sides' interpretation of this particular amendment to our Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld "the individual right to keep and bear arms", but, the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that that right to keep and bear arms is not without limits:
Perhaps what we really need to be looking at is more along the lines of what actually constitutes 'arms'. There are all kinds of definitions, interpretations, and slants being offered by a variety of what I will call 'nuts' on both sides of that issue. After all, Justice Scalia used the words "dangerous and unusual weapons" in his majority opinion without going into specifics of what those "dangerous and unusual weapons" actually are. That kind of leaves the door open to interpretation as to what weapons actually meet those very generalized terms and conditions, does it not?
For the record, I personally believe assault style weapons, AR-15s specifically (and, yes, I DO know that AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle....not Assault Rifle), fall within those parameters. The gory details on why I feel that way are fodder for another blog post down the road as are some of the nuances left wide open by the vagaries in the language used by the Founders to write the 2nd Amendment in the first place.
Also for the record, just because the majority opinion in D.C. vs Heller specifies limitations on guns in a more general sense does not translate into a full on ban of said weapons. Limitations are limitations. What those limitations might look like is what is open to discussion and debate. Heck, even the National Firearms Act doesn't completely and totally ban fully automatic weapons. Those weapons are simply put into a category of weaponry that requires owners and/or purchasers to jump through some pretty significant hoops in order to purchase them and maintain ownership of same. This kind of begs the question, then, as to why at least some of those restrictions placed on fully automatic weaponry as outlined in the National Firearms Act aren't being considered for assault style semi-automatic weaponry, as well?
The AR-15 is generally considered to be a civilian version of the M16 military assault rifle. The only difference between the two that I could find is that the M16 has two firing modes - full automatic and semi automatic. The AR-15 has only the semi automatic firing mode. That being said, the fact bump stocks turn the AR-15 into a functional and virtually fully automatic weapon is just one more reason why limitations on this particular assault style weapon are, in my opinion, warranted and necessary.
Add to that the fact none of the authors I've researched placed any degree of reliability or accuracy with any of the early repeating rifles, and we have a sort of a conundrum. The author did say, "Very few have survived, for what I would consider obvious reasons", so, perhaps this solves that conundrum, eh?
Bottom line? In this instance the 'whataboutthis' argument used by so many pro-gun advocates to dismiss the 'technology' position when it comes to weaponry then vs now has no merit, nor does it have any validity in reality.
The two technologies, the flintlock repeating musket and the AR-15 semi-automatic assault style rifle, have one thing, and one thing only, in common that I can see....they both have a 'repeating' capacity.
And, for the record, the reason I'm even mentioning the repeating flintlock musket is because a pro-gun advocate on a Facebook page I follow tried to use this primitive weapon as his example in a comment on someone else's post of how the AR-15 is not new technology....that a repeating function was in existence when the 2nd Amendment was adopted. While that may be true in a literal sense, that's also the point at which any other comparisons render that position moot.
I do not claim to be anywhere near a gun 'expert'. Never have been. Am not now. Never will be. But I am willing to learn by doing relevant research. My research leads me to believe the general message of the meme at the beginning of this blog post is valid and remains relevant as far as I'm concerned....that we are comparing apples to oranges when talking about era appropriate technology. We can nitpick on details of the technology, but the underlying message of the meme is not altered by any of that in any way, shape, or form.
The 2nd Amendment has pretty much been beaten to death by both sides' interpretation of this particular amendment to our Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld "the individual right to keep and bear arms", but, the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that that right to keep and bear arms is not without limits:
D.C. vs Heller (2008), Justice Antonin Scalia majority opinion: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Perhaps what we really need to be looking at is more along the lines of what actually constitutes 'arms'. There are all kinds of definitions, interpretations, and slants being offered by a variety of what I will call 'nuts' on both sides of that issue. After all, Justice Scalia used the words "dangerous and unusual weapons" in his majority opinion without going into specifics of what those "dangerous and unusual weapons" actually are. That kind of leaves the door open to interpretation as to what weapons actually meet those very generalized terms and conditions, does it not?
For the record, I personally believe assault style weapons, AR-15s specifically (and, yes, I DO know that AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle....not Assault Rifle), fall within those parameters. The gory details on why I feel that way are fodder for another blog post down the road as are some of the nuances left wide open by the vagaries in the language used by the Founders to write the 2nd Amendment in the first place.
Also for the record, just because the majority opinion in D.C. vs Heller specifies limitations on guns in a more general sense does not translate into a full on ban of said weapons. Limitations are limitations. What those limitations might look like is what is open to discussion and debate. Heck, even the National Firearms Act doesn't completely and totally ban fully automatic weapons. Those weapons are simply put into a category of weaponry that requires owners and/or purchasers to jump through some pretty significant hoops in order to purchase them and maintain ownership of same. This kind of begs the question, then, as to why at least some of those restrictions placed on fully automatic weaponry as outlined in the National Firearms Act aren't being considered for assault style semi-automatic weaponry, as well?
The AR-15 is generally considered to be a civilian version of the M16 military assault rifle. The only difference between the two that I could find is that the M16 has two firing modes - full automatic and semi automatic. The AR-15 has only the semi automatic firing mode. That being said, the fact bump stocks turn the AR-15 into a functional and virtually fully automatic weapon is just one more reason why limitations on this particular assault style weapon are, in my opinion, warranted and necessary.
Thank goodness bump stocks now fall under Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regulations as converting semi-automatic rifles into functioning machineguns:
On December 18, 2018, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker announced that the Department of Justice has amended the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), clarifying that bump stocks fall within the definition of “machinegun” under federal law, as such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger (Bump Stocks: Final Rule)
Observation 2....Gun Free Zones:
Maybe we should be looking at eliminating 'gun free zones'. After all, the NRA has had gun free zones in their metaphorical crosshairs forever, right? Well, kinda.
The National Rifle Association advocated for 'gun free zones' immediately following the massacre at Columbine. A little more context is necessary according to several fact checking organizations, but you can listen to his speech on Youtube and decide for yourselves whether more context is necessary or not: Wayne LaPierre at an NRA Convention on May 1, 1999 in Colorado.
Context or not, it didn't take the NRA very long to morph their position into 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' mantra. The NRA, since Columbine, has consistently advocated for more guns in schools. More guns in schools would, by design, require that 'gun free zones' go bye-bye.
There's been a lot of talk in cyberspace about eliminating 'gun free zones' virtually across the board. President Trump advocated getting rid of 'gun free zones'. One of his campaign promises in the leadup to the 2016 Presidential election was to get rid of 'gun free zones' on day one if he were elected. That didn't happen, but the push to do so is still strong on the pro-gun advocacy side of the issue, and the likelihood that it will happen eventually shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. All it would require is the repeal of a certain law that established 'gun free zones' in the first place.
That being said, before we jump on the 'get rid of gun free zones' bandwagon, perhaps we should look at the original intent behind 'gun free zones' and the intent behind the Gun Free School Zones Act. This act is, in fact, a law....a Federal law. It has gone through several iterations, one of which was to revise it to make it 'constitutional'. It was originally passed in a bi-partisan effort to try and address the increasing risks associated with kids frequently bringing guns into a school environment.
But, and this is a very BIG but, I also believe this law has been misinterpreted and misused by many. In fact, my understanding of implementation of 'gun free zones' under this law is more along the lines of recourse for violations....violations perpetrated by kids bringing guns to school, or violations perpetrated by non-school staff and/or students by bringing guns into a specified area surrounding a school.
The law is also specific to schools. There is no mention it applies to businesses, public venues, homes, or places of worship.
I've looked pretty hard at the provisions of the Gun Free School Zones Act, and I cannot find anything at all that says a school must be in compliance with the law. I think it's almost universally assumed that the law requires compliance by schools. Perhaps that assumption is incorrect? If someone else can find a provision for same, please show me where it is. I'd really like to get this cleared up somehow.
Carrying that thought one step further, and looking even deeper into the Gun Free School Zones Act, it's pretty clear there were no provisions included under the law for penalties that might be levied on schools choosing non-compliance with the law, itself....at least that I could find. There are quite a few provisions for penalties that apply to those who bring guns into a designated gun free zone, but penalties for non-compliance related to implementation by a school? None that I can find. Again, if someone else can find a provision for same, please show me where it is because I'd really like to get this cleared up somehow.
Why is that important? It's important because schools apparently are not absolutely required to implement this law, this 'gun free zone' law. The actual requirement, if one wishes to call it that, is a matter of funding according to the U.S. Department of Education.
In other words, if school districts wish to receive certain kinds of funding from the Department of Education, they must declare their schools as 'Gun Free Zones' under that law. The law, itself, apparently does not absolutely require schools' compliance with the law.
That then begs the question why....why the focus on eliminating 'gun free zones' entirely? Should that kind of mandate be codified into law? Should it originate at the Federal level? State level? Local level? Should it apply only to schools since that's what the original law did? Should it apply across the board to include public venues, churches, places of business, homes?
Confusing?
Well, things may be about to get even more confusing.
There are currently many states that already allow guns on their campuses. In fact, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 19 states allow guns on K-12 campuses in some capacity as of March 8, 2019.
Then why are so-called 'gun free zones' the big bugaboo so many pro-gun advocates make them out to be? Might it be that pro-gun advocates try to make 'gun free zones' into something they were never intended to be? The logic in that premise is actually pretty solid from where I sit.
For example, and to use the argument put forward by the more pro-gun side in this debate, guns are inanimate objects. Using that very same logic, though, signs are inanimate objects, as well. I hear it all the time from pro-gun advocates that a 'gun free zone' sign won't stop someone from committing mass murder. I agree simply from a perspective that inanimate objects are incapable of anything without human intervention of some sort. That being said, in the very next breath, those very same pro-gun advocates promote the idea that miscreants view a 'gun free zone' sign and consider it a magnet that draws them to a very soft target even though no definitive research has ever, not even once, proven this premise to have any validity whatsoever.
Carrying this logic even one step further, it might be safe to say virtually everyone has seen some version of the pro-gun argument that "guns don't kill people...people kill people" cliche'. That statement assumes the gun is an inanimate object, a 'tool' as some like to label it....and rightfully so. But, in the very next breath, those same folks blow up their own premise more often than not by trying to convince us that "guns save lives". Well, if guns don't kill people because they're inanimate objects, how can guns possibly 'save' people? They're inanimate, right? How can they suddenly be capable of an act to save someone if they're inanimate? A conundrum if ever there was one, and there are some who've had a really, really, really hard time wrapping their heads around that conundrum when confronted with it!
Bottom line? Does anyone realistically believe for one second that a sign imprinted with 'GUN FREE ZONE' was ever intended to physically 'stop' someone intent on doing harm to others? Pretty silly, right? Or, put another way, how is a 'GUN FREE ZONE' any different, really, than a stop sign as far as the intended purpose of said sign might be?
Both signs, Gun Free Zone signs and stop signs, are there to provide notice of consequences to violators for actions taken that violate the intent of the laws those signs were created under. Unfortunately, in so many instances of mass murder, the violator's penalty is a self-inflicted suicide along with what those having little emotional attachment often times call 'collateral damage'. In those instances, the suicide of the perpetrator(s) is the penalty or consequence of their actions while abdicating taking any responsibility for their actions and also preventing society from exacting any penalties or being able to impose any level of responsibility for the tragedy. And that, to me, may be a more subtle, nuanced reason behind pro-gun advocates desire to eliminate 'gun free zones'. Yes, they want to neutralize a mass shooter as quickly as possible to minimize fatalities and injuries. But might there also be a little bit of a vigilante mentality wending its way into the psyche of the hero who takes down the mass shooter? Just some food for thought.
But I digress......
If 'gun free zones' are legislatively eliminated, will it be from a Federal level? State level, perhaps? Will local jurisdictions and/or school districts have a say in whether or not they actually want these 'gun free zones' to go away? Serious question, folks.
If 'gun free zones' are, by law, eliminated no matter the level of government doing so, doesn't that also mean businesses, public venues, churches, and homeowners who'd like to keep those locations free of guns will be forced to allow guns on their premises....against their wishes? Talk about government over-reach!!!!!
Observation 3....Arming School Staff:
Perhaps it IS time to consider arming school staff.
Actually, preliminary research would indicate that arming school staff is a mixed bag of pros and cons, advocates for and advocates against arming teachers.
There's been a lot of talk in cyberspace about eliminating 'gun free zones' virtually across the board. President Trump advocated getting rid of 'gun free zones'. One of his campaign promises in the leadup to the 2016 Presidential election was to get rid of 'gun free zones' on day one if he were elected. That didn't happen, but the push to do so is still strong on the pro-gun advocacy side of the issue, and the likelihood that it will happen eventually shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. All it would require is the repeal of a certain law that established 'gun free zones' in the first place.
That being said, before we jump on the 'get rid of gun free zones' bandwagon, perhaps we should look at the original intent behind 'gun free zones' and the intent behind the Gun Free School Zones Act. This act is, in fact, a law....a Federal law. It has gone through several iterations, one of which was to revise it to make it 'constitutional'. It was originally passed in a bi-partisan effort to try and address the increasing risks associated with kids frequently bringing guns into a school environment.
But, and this is a very BIG but, I also believe this law has been misinterpreted and misused by many. In fact, my understanding of implementation of 'gun free zones' under this law is more along the lines of recourse for violations....violations perpetrated by kids bringing guns to school, or violations perpetrated by non-school staff and/or students by bringing guns into a specified area surrounding a school.
The law is also specific to schools. There is no mention it applies to businesses, public venues, homes, or places of worship.
I've looked pretty hard at the provisions of the Gun Free School Zones Act, and I cannot find anything at all that says a school must be in compliance with the law. I think it's almost universally assumed that the law requires compliance by schools. Perhaps that assumption is incorrect? If someone else can find a provision for same, please show me where it is. I'd really like to get this cleared up somehow.
Carrying that thought one step further, and looking even deeper into the Gun Free School Zones Act, it's pretty clear there were no provisions included under the law for penalties that might be levied on schools choosing non-compliance with the law, itself....at least that I could find. There are quite a few provisions for penalties that apply to those who bring guns into a designated gun free zone, but penalties for non-compliance related to implementation by a school? None that I can find. Again, if someone else can find a provision for same, please show me where it is because I'd really like to get this cleared up somehow.
Why is that important? It's important because schools apparently are not absolutely required to implement this law, this 'gun free zone' law. The actual requirement, if one wishes to call it that, is a matter of funding according to the U.S. Department of Education.
In other words, if school districts wish to receive certain kinds of funding from the Department of Education, they must declare their schools as 'Gun Free Zones' under that law. The law, itself, apparently does not absolutely require schools' compliance with the law.
That then begs the question why....why the focus on eliminating 'gun free zones' entirely? Should that kind of mandate be codified into law? Should it originate at the Federal level? State level? Local level? Should it apply only to schools since that's what the original law did? Should it apply across the board to include public venues, churches, places of business, homes?
Confusing?
Well, things may be about to get even more confusing.
There are currently many states that already allow guns on their campuses. In fact, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 19 states allow guns on K-12 campuses in some capacity as of March 8, 2019.
Then why are so-called 'gun free zones' the big bugaboo so many pro-gun advocates make them out to be? Might it be that pro-gun advocates try to make 'gun free zones' into something they were never intended to be? The logic in that premise is actually pretty solid from where I sit.
For example, and to use the argument put forward by the more pro-gun side in this debate, guns are inanimate objects. Using that very same logic, though, signs are inanimate objects, as well. I hear it all the time from pro-gun advocates that a 'gun free zone' sign won't stop someone from committing mass murder. I agree simply from a perspective that inanimate objects are incapable of anything without human intervention of some sort. That being said, in the very next breath, those very same pro-gun advocates promote the idea that miscreants view a 'gun free zone' sign and consider it a magnet that draws them to a very soft target even though no definitive research has ever, not even once, proven this premise to have any validity whatsoever.
Carrying this logic even one step further, it might be safe to say virtually everyone has seen some version of the pro-gun argument that "guns don't kill people...people kill people" cliche'. That statement assumes the gun is an inanimate object, a 'tool' as some like to label it....and rightfully so. But, in the very next breath, those same folks blow up their own premise more often than not by trying to convince us that "guns save lives". Well, if guns don't kill people because they're inanimate objects, how can guns possibly 'save' people? They're inanimate, right? How can they suddenly be capable of an act to save someone if they're inanimate? A conundrum if ever there was one, and there are some who've had a really, really, really hard time wrapping their heads around that conundrum when confronted with it!
Bottom line? Does anyone realistically believe for one second that a sign imprinted with 'GUN FREE ZONE' was ever intended to physically 'stop' someone intent on doing harm to others? Pretty silly, right? Or, put another way, how is a 'GUN FREE ZONE' any different, really, than a stop sign as far as the intended purpose of said sign might be?
Both signs, Gun Free Zone signs and stop signs, are there to provide notice of consequences to violators for actions taken that violate the intent of the laws those signs were created under. Unfortunately, in so many instances of mass murder, the violator's penalty is a self-inflicted suicide along with what those having little emotional attachment often times call 'collateral damage'. In those instances, the suicide of the perpetrator(s) is the penalty or consequence of their actions while abdicating taking any responsibility for their actions and also preventing society from exacting any penalties or being able to impose any level of responsibility for the tragedy. And that, to me, may be a more subtle, nuanced reason behind pro-gun advocates desire to eliminate 'gun free zones'. Yes, they want to neutralize a mass shooter as quickly as possible to minimize fatalities and injuries. But might there also be a little bit of a vigilante mentality wending its way into the psyche of the hero who takes down the mass shooter? Just some food for thought.
But I digress......
If 'gun free zones' are legislatively eliminated, will it be from a Federal level? State level, perhaps? Will local jurisdictions and/or school districts have a say in whether or not they actually want these 'gun free zones' to go away? Serious question, folks.
If 'gun free zones' are, by law, eliminated no matter the level of government doing so, doesn't that also mean businesses, public venues, churches, and homeowners who'd like to keep those locations free of guns will be forced to allow guns on their premises....against their wishes? Talk about government over-reach!!!!!
Observation 3....Arming School Staff:
Perhaps it IS time to consider arming school staff.
 |
| Dr. Jerri Mc on Twitter |
I know, I know.....pretty extreme and out in left field, right? Well, hang in there with me for a bit.
Actually, preliminary research would indicate that arming school staff is a mixed bag of pros and cons, advocates for and advocates against arming teachers.
Different perspectives:
- National School Safety and Security Services: School safety expert advises against arming teachers and school staff
- Education Week: Teachers in 42 States to Get Training on How to Shoot Guns from July 17, 2019.
- Public Broadcasting System: NRA backs Trump’s call for arming teachers: ‘Schools must be the most hardened targets’ from February 22, 2018.
Is it a culture issue? There are those who say it is: In Europe, fewer mass killings due to culture not guns from December 18, 2012.
Where's this going? Can't we all just get along? Apparently not.
Some have even called for both open and concealed carry everywhere. Some states have gone so far as to enact laws to that effect. Are we reverting back to the Wild West? Do we even WANT to revert back to those days?
Oh, wait....according to some historians, the Old West wasn't as free of gun control as we'd like to think.
Because we appear to be so divided on these issues, I offer the following:
Maybe it's time for us to 'think outside the box', so to speak. Would it be viable to even consider the possibility of keeping 'gun free zones' while giving permission to school staff to carry on campus? Those permissions are already currently in effect for law enforcement in 'gun free zones'. Why not extend this 'exception' to school staff?
Okay, if we decide to go that route, now we need to ask ourselves how much training should teachers be required to go through in how to handle a gun and how to diffuse a potentially lethal situation.
We also need to ask ourselves whether a school district is willing to purchase and maintain adequate liability insurance, especially if one of their armed staff makes a mistake during an active shooter incident, or forgets to secure their weapon and a student gets a hold of it, or one of their staff loses it (from March 1, 2018) and uses the weapon in an 'unlawful manner' on campus?
Maybe we need to ask school staff if they would be willing to undergo the rigorous training police officers must undergo to become police - this might could oughta work as long as school staff are also willing to keep up with professional development in this area.
Yeah, arming school staff could work. Doing so would also be very expensive. Doing so would also place just one more 'burden' on already overburdened school staff. Plus, who's going to foot the bill? Staff themselves? The school district? Parents? Taxpayers?
Are teachers going to be given 'hazardous duty pay'. I know if I were a teacher packing heat on the job, I would demand extra pay to do so!
No easy answers. Everything must be considered. Knee jerk reactions don't accomplish anything.
Isn't it time for a rational, national dialogue?
Isn't it time we all accept there are many possible alternatives/resources available to help resolve the issue of gun violence and school safety in this country?
For the record, I have never, I do not now, nor will I ever support arming school staff unless it is as a very last resort. There are just too many negative variables with doing so. That being said, I will never tell a school district or associated community they cannot arm school staff. Those local jurisdictions and school districts need to make that decision one way or the other for themselves based on their own unique circumstances and demographics, and also based on them doing so with eyes wide open after having done a viable hazards analysis and risk assessment as part of a Multi-hazard Planning Checklist for Schools effort.
My two cents.
* Comments on this blog are moderated.
No comments:
Post a Comment