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