Naturally, some people object.
“I feel it is a really strong overreaction to what happened at Sandy Hook,” said Clayton Rascoe, parent of a Hunt pre-kindergarten student, referring to the Connecticut elementary where 20 children and six staff members were shot dead in December. “Clearly teachers and staff are not trained to carry firearms and take care of crisis situations,” Rascoe said.
So were Obama, Biden, Bloomberg, Feinstein’s actions not a strong overreaction as well?
Teachers are not trained to take care of crisis situations. What about bullying? What about troubled students? depressed students? There’s all manner of crises that teachers have to deal with. Violence in our schools is nothing new, from the “schoolyard fight”, to now students getting quite aggressive and physically violent with teachers over things like requests to put away mobile phones. Should teachers not be able to handle a crisis?
“There are police and military personnel who train their entire lives for such a situation and they unfortunately get it wrong sometimes,” he said. “I don’t think it is going to solve anything. I think it will introduce more problems than it could ever cure.”
How? What facts and evidence can support your claim? Firearms ownership has risen. Concealed carry has risen. There are more people walking around you today that have guns hidden on their person. And just-released BJS data shows that firearm homicides have decreased. More guns, less firearm homicide. How is this a reduction in violent crime a problem? Is that what you want?
“We teach kids implicitly with everything we do,” he said. “By doing this we are teaching them that violence is a viable solution.”
I hate to say it, Jack, but sometimes violence is not just a viable solution, it’s the only solution. I used to say that to, that violence is not the answer. But now I know that sometimes it is. Oh sure, you cannot make it your only answer, and you must consider if it is the best solution to the given problem. I mean, look at what women’s “rape prevention” seminars are all about — kick him in the groin, palm strike him in the nose, kick, bite, punch. That’s the offered — and socially and culturally acceptable solution — and it looks a lot like violence to me. Are you saying we shouldn’t teach rape prevention, because that would be teaching violence as a viable solution?
“I own guns. I hunt with guns. I teach my kids to use guns,” he said. “But this is a place of education and safety.”
It should be a place of education and safety. Alas, it is not. Granted, mass shootings are rare and on the decline (despite the media and political hype), so you should look at the mundane. I mean, bullying is pretty common at school. Schoolyard fights happen. A school is no magic bubble that somehow prevents bad things from happening. But I can think of things that can further deter and prevent bad things from happening.
A gun owner himself, Moseley said he didn’t vote for the measure because letting guns in school is not the right answer.
“Teachers are trained to be nurturers, not protectors,” he said.
To nurture is to care for and encourage the growth of development of. If you care for these kids, isn’t their safey important? If you want to see them grow, shouldn’t you want to also ensure they can live to see another day? We put fire alarms, extinguishers, and suppression systems in our schools. We have the kids go through fire drills so they can know precisely how to evacuate the school in the event of a fire. Depending where you live, you might have tornado drills. And the teachers and staff run these drills, maintain the order, and help to deal with the crisis.
Why shouldn’t we enable our teachers — who we entrust with the future of this country — to be able to fully care for their students?