Shootings are a real problem in America. I’ve never denied it, and I don’t want to risk alienating readers–current and potential–by acting as though there isn’t a problem.
However, when it comes to solutions, men and women who are out of touch with reality are everywhere to be seen.
For starters, the men and women the President has tapped to provide answers to the knotty problem of how to solve this dilemma are firmly rooted in the prevailing vision of government as savior, solution, and supreme. They refuse to admit that the federal government could be the problem.
Also, the “solutions” these people loudly acclaim and proclaim are not solutions. They are non-solutions.
Stricter gun-control laws. Universal background checks. Tighter restrictions on handgun and ammo sales. More numerous gun-free zones.
None of these measures, enacted in cities across the country, has reduced gun-related crimes in those jurisdictions. In fact, almost universally, crime has gone up in the wake of these measures.
In keeping with my recent decision to speak my mind, to add my voice to the debate surrounding current issues, I have come to the table today with an alternative solution to this very real problem. A very real, workable solution. A very simple solution.
Let’s bring guns back into schools.
We’ve seen conclusively over the past several years that the only thing removing guns from schools does is ensure that criminals like Adam Lanza are capable of maximum damage when the shooting begins.
So, how would guns in schools prevent another tragedy like Sandy Hook?
Well, they wouldn’t. Before we go any further in this discussion, we need to establish once and for all that guns do not kill people. People kill people, and they use many things to do it: guns, knives, hammers, baseball bats, letter openers, tire irons, and a host of other objects that have other purposes, but become lethal weapons in the wrong hands.
Another truth you won’t hear from those lusting after absolute power is that criminals don’t always use guns to kill large amounts of people.
Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer, gasoline, and box trucks. The terrorists who created the major disaster of 9-11-2001 used airplanes.
Yet no one is screaming for fertilizer to be banned. No one is suggesting that gasoline be eliminated because it can be used as a weapon. No one is decrying the widespread distribution of airplanes throughout our nation.
Furthermore, in the great debate surrounding guns and their availability to criminals, what many people fail to admit is that often, “…the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”
Wayne LaPierre, the president of the NRA, had it right.
So, let’s put guns back in the hands of those who are closest to the children: the teachers.
Teachers already have to pass a pretty stringent string of tests before they can begin their career in a classroom. They have to have a degree in education from a qualified institution. They have to pass a criminal background check and drug screening. In many states, a person convicted of a felony cannot receive a teacher’s license.
When looking at the above requirements for a teacher, something should be pretty clear.
The people who qualify to teach also qualify to acquire a concealed carry permit.
My thoughts on the concealed carry issue will be forthcoming in a subsequent post, but for now, let’s go with the above line of reasoning.
Licensed teachers qualify to be licensed concealed carriers. Let them carry their firearms to school. But don’t stop there: let’s start a program that offers training in counter-terrorism tactics, similar to that which police and SWAT team forces receive. There’s no reason to expect these people to be as highly-trained as those in the military special forces. Then again, there’s no reason to expect them to go to work unarmed every day, bound hand and foot by government regulations that leaves them as defenseless as sheep before a butcher.
We’ve seen the result of that sort of legislation. It’s time for some [healthy] change.
If a person contemplating a shooting of the type that happened in Newtown knows that he is likely to be met with a hail of well-placed bullets from armed teachers instructed in the proper use of deadly force, it’s almost a guarantee he’ll call off the operation. If he further knows that these same teachers have been instructed in unarmed combat techniques that enable a person to use his or her own hands as a lethal weapon, the probability of his abandoning the scheme increases exponentially.
I would not be so naive to expect schools across the nation to universally adopt this type of policy overnight. However, as more and more schools implement a plan similar to the one outlined above, criminals will adapt. It is possible that school shootings will continue, but only in those places where the retrogressive system remains in force. Before long, however, people will catch on to the simple truth:
If we put guns back into the hands of trained personnel in school zones, criminals will stop targeting these zones. The ease of access and guarantee of a successful massacre will be significantly reduced.
Do I think this will work? Yes, I do, but not simply because I came up with the solution. The truth is, criminals prefer unarmed victims. That’s why all of the mass shootings we’ve experienced over the last year have occurred in places where federal regulations stipulate that no one–not even a concealed carry permit holder–is to have a gun.
Criminals are dangerous. Not all criminals, however, are stupid. Taking guns from the hands of those who obey the laws is a non-solution, because we all know that criminals are considered criminals because they do not obey the laws of the land. Continue to take guns away from law-abiding citizens in certain jurisdictions and situations, and you may be certain that gun-related crime rates will not go down in those places.
As we’ve seen already, the rates will only go in one direction: up.