by Evelyn Pyburn
So what is the primary goal? Protect the students of public schools or control the use of firearms?
Passing laws regarding guns does not protect students under attack. Nor does devising some massive mental health program, or revamping background checks.
The last line of defense of life is to defend it. When facing the point of a gun, the only defense is the point of another gun. Even the mentally unstable know that, that’s why they select sites that promise to have no guns.
Passing federal legislation is not a defense. At best it is a hope and a prayer to change the potential of something happening, but WHEN it IS happening, a law is nothing.
After all, it is against the law to shoot people. It was against the law for a shooter to bring a gun on campus. It is often against the law for the shooter to have the weapon they have.
So long as the solution is being sought in Washington DC, you can be sure that whatever its point, it has little to do with protecting students from shooters in schools. Be assured that when someone is turning to Washington DC for a solution, they are changing the subject. They are turning to Washington DC because they know that state and local government do not have the authority to do what they are really seeking.
Protection can be multi-faceted, but the ultimate protection is to meet an armed threat with arms. That is just an inescapable fact.
Everyone seems to know that that is the final line of defense is, except – most astoundingly – except when it comes to protecting our children in schools.
The federal court house has armed defense all the time. Federal judges do not wait for an attack and then call the police. Are our children not as important as federal judges? When the reaction to protecting children in schools is not as straight forward and simple as protecting judges or airports then the reality is our children are being used as fodder in a political power struggle. That is the simple truth of it all.
When MetraPark has crowds to protect, they call on armed off-duty sheriff’s deputies to be available on the premises. They do not wait for something to happen. They do not say leave your guns behind.
In fact, the public schools aren’t opposing the use of guns, at all. When they call 911 they are saying “bring in the guns.” The problem for public schools is that when they call the police – when they call for the guns, it is “later” – and sadly “later” has almost always been after the students are dead.
Probably sincere people hope that changing some policies and aspects of society will end up eliminating such attacks – but exactly how many children are we to sacrifice while waiting for that day to come? We are not dealing with wishes, “should be’s”, “what if’s” or “if only’s” – this is a matter of immediate reality, a right now life and death issue. It is a time when pragmatism is needed.
We have historically been a “can do” people from practical necessity. To expect to be taken care of by the federal government for most things has always been unrealistic, and historically eschewed as a practical solution for most things in life. The folly of counting on government was more than amply demonstrated by the huge failures of government, from top to bottom, in the Florida shooting incident. It is demonstrated by the decades of federal level debates that have yet to mitigate school shootings. And, yet, so many people still cling to this hugely failed approach.
What more evidence is needed to know that the solution to a local school safety issue must come from state and local communities?
Every state and every community has the means and authority to solve this problem. All they need to do, is to do it. In fact, every parent has the means, authority and responsibility to address the issue, and they can do it most effectively, simply in the choices they make about where and how they educate their children.
If people can be trained to be policeman, then surely other people inside schools can also be trained. The reality is in most schools there are already people – veterans – who have experience and training; and, other volunteers are fully capable of adding such expertise to their resumes. But, instead of taking advantage of this wonderful resource, school administrators prefer to leave them defenseless – putting their lives and that of the lives of the children at unnecessary risk.
The great irony is that if communities, parents and schools were just to declare that they are no longer willing to be sitting ducks for anyone with a gun, that that alone would discourage many attackers. To put up a sign outside, as some schools have done, that instead of reading “no guns allowed,” says “We have guns and will use them to protect our children” — that alone could be more effective than any guns.
Providing protection for schools is not complicated, we all know the solution. The question is, are you willing to sacrifice what potentially could be your child’s life to the protracted political process of passing federal gun legislation?