Sunday, September 14, 2014

Emotion Shouldn’t Stand in the Way of Solution.



We allow our hearts, passions and phobias to trump rational thinking and common sense.  We refer to anecdotal tales, isolated events or fragmentary statistics to undermine common sense and practicality.  Case and point: guns.
Whether you’re thinking, “don’t touch mine” or “destroy them all”, the simple term, ‘guns’ elicits an emotional response.  Ranking up there with gay marriage, abortion and Justin Bieber in society-polarizing-power, conflicting opinions on guns turn the trusted into the suspect, the beloved into the irritating and the rational into the idiotic.
Guns kill…so do Chevys, swimming pools and, in one case I know of (triggering a fatal aneurism) popcorn.  One major difference in this list is intended purpose, guns are designed to kill.  Not exclusively, they’re also designed for entertainment (targets, skeet, etc.), food (hunting still rounds out food budgets across our country) and home protection (rural Americans don’t have access to immediate response from law enforcement).  My point is this, guns are neither moral nor immoral; they’re a tool.
Like all tools, they afford the holder increased power.  When an armed person is standing among unarmed people (think prison guard in a penitentiary), they possess significant individual power over the group.  Standing among other armed people, however, they do not. 
If that armed individual is a trained, mentally and emotionally healthy person, the weapon isn’t a problem.  It is, at the least, harmless, and in dire straits, an asset.  It’s when the armed individual is mentally unstable or untrained that a threat arises.
Though a statistically rare event, this is illustrated by school shootings.  A mentally unstable faction enters a known (and often advertised) gun-free area and forces their will on innocent people.  Unfortunately a country that often claims our greatest asset is our children has remained mostly stagnant addressing this issue.
Another common proclamation with no actual backing amongst Americans has to do with the importance of teachers and education (fodder for another article).  Simply placing several police officers in each school ensures the good guys didn’t bring a knife to a gunfight.  But, considering adjusted teacher salaries in Oklahoma (sorry Texas readers, I’m not familiar with your numbers) are between 15 and 20% lower than in 2006, and that Oklahoma leads the nation in reduced educational funding since 2008, it’s doubtful the legislature would spring for more personnel.
My solution: send teachers to reserve officer training and put a gun within their access (on their person or in a fingerprint triggered safe).   I even have a way to help pay for it (teachers will love this), place state legislators on classroom teacher’s pay scale, they get almost $7000 more starting out for their 4-month contribution to our well-being than teacher’s do for their 9+ months (again, fodder for another article).  This reduction in salary would free up roughly a million dollars to start the training.  Yes, I know my proposed funding option will never come to pass (legislators dictate their own salaries), but, as a school board member and educator, it feels good to suggest.
 Much like there are no atheists in a fox hole, there are no gun opponents in a shoot-out.  Only the most insanely gun-phobic among us could argue a school is better off without trained, armed personnel to faceoff an assault.  At the very least, an unstable person with a desire to be powerful among the powerless would know they won’t hold exclusive power over our kids.  If they shoot, others will shoot back.  If they step into a school to kill others and then themselves, responsible, trained adults are present to cut out the middle step.
We’re not talking political stances, were talking children, our children, emotion shouldn’t stand in the way of solution. 

No comments:

Post a Comment