In the days since the tragic school shooting, I have seen this sentiment quite often on Facebook and the like. And I suppose that's natural, living as I do in a country that "controls" weapons. Add to this the fact that Canada has not seen as many incidents of mass murder and people are likely to draw the conclusion that controlling guns equals controlling violence.
I'm not sure I agree completely with that -- although gun control does make it harder for the impulsive and/or mentally compromised violent offender to get their hands on a weapon. At least, that is the idea. The fact is that the criminal element is not known for obeying laws (not to overstate the obvious) and as such, any laws of gun control are not going to stop a suitably motivated person from acquiring a gun for illegal or violent purposes if that's what they want.
I digress.
I think the real shame in this situation (or any one of mass violence, for that matter) is that there weren't MORE guns in that school. That is the one thing that could have stopped that tragedy in its tracks -- For just one person to have a CCW permit and a weapon in hand to double tap that sorry piece of crap child murderer where he stood.
In fact... Wouldn't any potential mass murderers think twice about targeting a school if they knew that even half of the teachers were carrying a concealed weapon?
Just a thought.
4 comments:
I'll start by saying that I am not categorically opposed to gun control in any way, shape or form, like some folks I know are. Guns ARE dangerous, and it makes some sense to regulate them, for the sake of public safety.
That said, tighter gun control laws would have done NOTHING to prevent what happened in Connecticut. All those guns were legally obtained, properly documented, etc, etc. And his mom was responsible and well-versed in gun-safety. And yet. . .
I can't help thinking that the shooters are the problem, way more than the guns. . .
flutter, lot of sense to what you say. the frank truth is that because of knee-jerk reactions exactly the opposite is pushed, schools are a no-gun oasis. i've even known schools with security personnel on site that are required to leave any weapon at home.
a far less organized attacker was able to injure as many children in China, a gun control country that has had as much trouble with school violence if not maybe a bit more in recent years.
cowards nearly always go after defenseless targets. such was the case here, such was the case with McVeigh, such was the case on 9/11.
I don't agree that having more guns at the school would have done any good. First, a crazy person doesn't think logically......"hmmm...I'm not going to target this place, because they might have guns." Besides that, this case was clearly not a random act. He went to specifically kill his mother's students, in what I'd guess to be some sort of wacko jealousy.
Secondly, the idea of teachers carrying guns is ridiculous (sorry!). First, the majority are not going to want to. Then, there's the irresponsible ones who will leave it in their purse or desk and a kid will get ahold of it and accidentally kill another kid. Then there are teachers who will be easily overpowered by a violent student. The list goes on. Your average teacher is just not cut out for this.
Even if a principal had a gun, or an armed guard was there, I don't think the results would have been different. They can't be every where at once, and then it turns into a hostage situation or bullets flying everywhere and more kids dying. And think about the mall shooting in Oregon last week. Don't all malls have armed mall police? And people still got shot, right?
Yes, I have a lot of opinions on the matter.
I have to say I agree that armed teachers or administrators may not be the answer. I do believe we can find a few pennies for security though.
For a few years in this district there was a sheriff posted at schools as a liaison and also for security purposes. At first all agreed it was good but later the idea lost its focus and the liaison became a non-officer un-armed representative.
An armed trained officer may have discouraged said act or at least would have provided the chance to slow things down for first responders to get on the scene.
Post a Comment