Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Insight: Knee-jerk Legislation

Insight: Knee-jerk Legislation

Hello folks, been a while. As I'm sure you've learned about by now there was a tragic assault on some of our nation's innocent, very young children in Newton, CT. While extremely sad to see these young souls gone so soon, we must be vigilant not to overreact just as much as under-react. Since the sad day people on both sides of the gun ideology have been calling for their ideals realized. GUN CONTROL! MORE GUNS! ..And so on. Well, I was on Facebook and a friend of mine posted this. The person is mostly a pro-gun counter-logic political type guy and good for sparking discussion. Due to his position on guns I felt his support rather one sided and made the comment that I disagree. He urged I give points as to why I oppose such legislation, and hereee we goo: (Note: This is straight from my FB post responding to my friend, posturing my thoughts on the idea.)


One, this is just as much a knee-jerk reaction to the tragedy as advocating gun control is (you're just an advocate for guns, which is fine). Two, we don't need adults with a predisposition of being ready to kill a child (as it's arguable most school shootings occur at hand of other students). Three, the guaranteed accidents waiting to occur when a teacher misplaces or doesn't secure their weapon. Four, the vetting process for teachers (and substitutes) would only slow the already slow process, and most teachers don't want anything to do with guns (at least around children). Five, on top of the vetting process, people will slip through the cracks on proper training and schools with less funding (read: inner city) will have more cracks, potentially even supplying kids if corrupt enough. Six, parents typically don't want that sheer amount of weaponry around their kids when left unattended.

The idea of arming teachers is vindicating the idea that people aren't parenting their kids. This is true, but we're only treating the symptom. If all the teachers had guns, how many would have been accidentally shot in the process? These teachers aren't marksmen. Hell, the NYPD shot and wounded 9 people trying to take down the Empire State Building shooter who only shot his intended victim. And they are actively trained.

Personally, I believe in the "when everybody is super, nobody is super" mantra of gun proliferation, but at the same time not everyone is capable of the responsibility of gun ownership. While the idea is if culture normalizes gun ownership, a criminal is less likely to try a likely armed victim, crazy people are still going to be crazy. If teachers can carry guns at the school, I should be able to carry a gun anywhere I'm not potentially altering my mind state (i.e. bar/club). I shouldn't have to worry about a parent-teacher conference going awry over disagreements. I shouldn't have to worry about my child being in fear of getting shot just because he has a social behavior that tried the teacher's patience like talking excessively. What if a large kid(s) overpowers an unassuming teacher to take their weapon and run a muck?

Legislation like this is giving humanity way too much benefit of the doubt. Plus, concerns will only expand into "how do we further secure the transition to and from school" ..armed guards walking the streets at 3PM looking for trouble? And that's based on if the suggested legislation is successful and something still happens! If Lanza had the intention of doing what he did, even with the gun laws, he would have just found another way. While yes we want to curb the outcome of incidents, we need to focus on stopping the incident from happening. 1 child dying should be viewed just as bad as 20. Mass shootings have not increased, they're just increasingly tragic. The more tragic, the more outrage. Little poor kids in Chicago shooting each other every day, but that didn't send for the national discussion.

As far as securing the school, civil engineering would do more to secure the lives of those children than spreading guns to all the teachers. Monitored perimeter security cameras and making sure non-staff sign in to a secured location before proceeding into the school could safeguard children without any gun proliferation. If the argument is that school students are the primary aggressors in school shootings, then other preventative measures need be done, though parenting is the bigger issue.


I haven't gotten much a response since posting outside of a "like" by the poster, but I'm sure there's plenty stances and responses to give. Feel free to give yours.

No comments:

Post a Comment