By: Daniel Nardini
In Colorado, the state has sanctioned teachers and school staff to carry semi-automatic weapons and handguns. In Maryland, the governor has called for not only a ban on semi-automatic weapons and a limitation on how many rounds a gun can have but also state background checks and strict safety classes and mandatory regulation of guns and gun shops. It seems that one state or another is going to one extreme or another over the issue of guns and gun ownership. This debate has turned into a life-and-death struggle where one side or the other seems to want to prevail. In the case of the gun opponents, they see “too many guns” on the streets, while on the other side those who support gun ownership fear that not only the states but the federal government will “ban” all guns in the country. And when it comes down to how to protect public and private schools, the two sides could not be further apart.
This all began because of what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School back on December 14th. Without question it was a horrible tragedy, and should not be forgotten anytime soon. One thing that caught my attention was the fact that there was no security at the school. Locking doors and windows makes no sense when a lone gun person can simply break in or shoot their way in. That is what the perpetrator Adam Lanza did—he simply smashed a window and gained access to the whole school. In many high schools in the Chicago area there is at least one armed security guard in each school. They are there to prevent gangs from infiltrating into the schools and causing fights and actual gun battles in these schools. But by the same security measure that keeps gangs out can also stop lone gun persons.
Why this is not extended to elementary schools is beyond me. I do not believe in arming every teacher or administrator in a public (or private) school. The chances are high they might shoot each other or their students rather than any lone gun person. Even minimum security is better than none at all, and better in my view than arming everyone to the teeth. This can be done without too much more money being spent, and at least make a difference in a life and death situation. Of course having one or two armed security guards may or may not make a difference, but at least one or two people authorized to carry a firearm can at least blunt an attack should one ever come. Trying to keep schools “weapons free” has been shown to be a failure. In my view, there are enough laws on the books to regulate gun ownership, and making more plus banning certain categories of guns will not stop deranged and determined gun people from causing havoc and death—especially when targeting the innocent (we must remember that the semi-automatic assault weapons ban was in place during the Columbine High School massacre). Better investigations of possible threats may do more to stop a lone gun person targeting a school than any sweeping law banning guns or restricting peoples’ liberties. I still have to ask if there is some common ground on how to deal with the phenomenon of gun violence in regards to public and private schools?
The Gun Debate: Why No Common Ground on Schools?
By: Daniel Nardini
This all began because of what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School back on December 14th. Without question it was a horrible tragedy, and should not be forgotten anytime soon. One thing that caught my attention was the fact that there was no security at the school. Locking doors and windows makes no sense when a lone gun person can simply break in or shoot their way in. That is what the perpetrator Adam Lanza did—he simply smashed a window and gained access to the whole school. In many high schools in the Chicago area there is at least one armed security guard in each school. They are there to prevent gangs from infiltrating into the schools and causing fights and actual gun battles in these schools. But by the same security measure that keeps gangs out can also stop lone gun persons.
Why this is not extended to elementary schools is beyond me. I do not believe in arming every teacher or administrator in a public (or private) school. The chances are high they might shoot each other or their students rather than any lone gun person. Even minimum security is better than none at all, and better in my view than arming everyone to the teeth. This can be done without too much more money being spent, and at least make a difference in a life and death situation. Of course having one or two armed security guards may or may not make a difference, but at least one or two people authorized to carry a firearm can at least blunt an attack should one ever come. Trying to keep schools “weapons free” has been shown to be a failure. In my view, there are enough laws on the books to regulate gun ownership, and making more plus banning certain categories of guns will not stop deranged and determined gun people from causing havoc and death—especially when targeting the innocent (we must remember that the semi-automatic assault weapons ban was in place during the Columbine High School massacre). Better investigations of possible threats may do more to stop a lone gun person targeting a school than any sweeping law banning guns or restricting peoples’ liberties. I still have to ask if there is some common ground on how to deal with the phenomenon of gun violence in regards to public and private schools?