Editor, The Commercial:
The recent editorial on arming teachers with guns was very good. Gun fetishists! Well put! N.R.A. loyalists as well.
My questions are as follows:
1. If one considers the mathematical odds of a “shooter ” in any school when one considers the number of schools we have and the number that have had “active shooters ” — what are the odds it will happen at any of them?
2. If there is need for armed personnel in any school, then does it not follow that there is a need in ALL schools? What would make a poor school district less needful of armed personnel than a well-to-do district?
3. If we recognize there is a need, are we not legally and morally obligated to provide that protection for ALL OF OUR CHILDREN regardless of station, race or location? Where do we arrive at a conclusion that some folks’ kids are not as valued as others ?
4. The obvious conclusion I’d reach is that the taxpayers of this state must provide well-trained weapons bearers whose only duty or concern would be the defense of all occupants of all schools. It is definitely NOT another obligation we can saddle already overburdened and under-compensated teachers with. A teacher would be vulnerable to overpowering and assault by others (maybe students, maybe adults of other occupations in the schools) and the security would quite easily be compromised from within.
These are just a few of my thoughts and observations on this issue. Again, like I have long asserted — the Republicans and N.R.A. devotees want what they want. They just don’t want to PAY FOR IT. But there is no other recourse that is either morally correct or, I think, LEGALLY CORRECT.