Should schools be gun free zones or not?
The school board superintendent of Harrold, Texas thinks schools should NOT be gun free zones. In fact, he wants his teachers and administrators to be trained to carry a concealed weapon for the safety of the staff and students.
So, are gun free zones, such as Toronto’s David Miller is suggesting for the whole city, safe or actually more dangerous? While we would like to think they would be safer, in actual fact it appears they are actually more dangerous because the only people who obey are the law abiding citizens. For example, as the above National Post link indicates, after Great Britain banned hand guns following the shootings at Dunblane in 1996, the gun crime rate more than doubled.
The tragedy is that anyone who wants to go on a rampage can go to any gun free zone knowing that they can shoot as many people as they want before first responders are able to get there — assuming anyone is in a position to call emergency personnel in the first place.
I clearly understand that even talking about guns is political — particularly in the U.S. But, even here in Canada, after each massacre, people’s first reaction is to ban guns. But, does that actually make sense? I suppose it does because we want desperately to believe that if we don’t have guns around, it won’t happen again — except it does!
Let’s look at reality. Far too many innocent children and young people have died simply because someone, for whatever reason, went on a rampage and individuals died before the first responders could show up. Just recently in Canada, there was Dawson College and in 1989 Ecole Polytechnique.
While it is always tempting to say that those events are statistically insignificant or that the individuals killed were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, for those who died and their families, they were devastating events.
I personally hate guns. In fact, I don’t like being in the same room as one and I have no idea why some people want to collect them. To me they are meant only for killing. But, at the same time, I also realize that if a location is a gun free zone, all that means is that there is no one around to defend children and young people if anyone is set on creating a disaster.
So, does this Harrold, Texas proposal simply reinforce the American “cowboy” image as suggested by the Open Education website? Or, would teachers and parents feel the students were safer knowing a someone on staff had a gun and was well trained to use it in an emergency?
In other words, given this crazy turned upside down world we seem to be living in, should schools be gun free zones or not?
C/P at Jack’s Newswatch.
Murray the Hun:
Most of your comments are exactly right, except for your opinion that firearms are “meant only for killing.”
First, firearms are inanimate objects. The purpose to which they are put is formed in the mind of the user, not the object. Your assertion is an example of an anthropomorphic fallacy.
Second, the intent to kill is a legitimate use of a firearm in some circumstances, that are not as uncommon as you might think. This is precisely why firearms are used by police, prison guards, and armed security guards. The Criminal Code of Canada allows the use of lethal force in defense of the person, which covers the use of a firearm by any citizen in defence of persons. The Firearms Act allows for the licenced carry of handguns for the purpose of self defence, although this provision is only used for several hundred special persons, the exact number appears to be a state secret.
I think that your fears are reasonable under the circumstances, but I believe that they are, in part at least, the result of decades of Liberal and leftist propaganda.
The point is this: if we are serious about the protection of our children in schools from murderous persons, we must take positive, real steps to ensure this security. To simply ban firearms is merely symbolic, and is not positive step in this sense. Illegal firearms would still be readily available to the criminals who would use them for evil purposes. If we were securing dangerous prisoners, objects of great monetary value, dignitaries, or on-duty police officers, we would use firearms and not have any hesitation. Do our children (and adult students, as well) deserve less than these? Obviously not. If we conclude otherwise, we must allow for the periodic, horrific school shooting, and be prepared to accept these as a direct result of the policies we adopt. The school division in Texas is not prepared to expose their students to this risk, and good for them.
August 20, 2008, 3:45 pmSandy:
Murray the Hun — I appreciate your comment but I don’t think it appropriate that you presume to understand why I “feel” as I do about guns. There are valid reasons I feel as I do and it has nothing to do with anthromorphizing them or Liberal propaganda.
The bottom line is that I simply don’t like them and nothing you or anyone else can say will ever change my mind. And, we will just have to agree to disagree about their purposes.
But, that said, it is very obvious to me that gun free zones are very dangerous places to be when there is no one able to respond immediately to a gunman’s rampage.
In fact, I would say that my coming around from being firmly in the gun control camp to advocating gun availability as protection, is most telling — particularly since I am of a different generation - having been born during WWII.
August 20, 2008, 5:45 pmMurray the Hun:
“Inappropriate”? You really are a teacher.
However, please be assured that I meant no offence. I obviously extrapolated the reasons behind your clearly expressed antipathy, and reached an incorrect conclusion.
August 20, 2008, 8:54 pmSandy:
Murry the Hun — So the word “inappropriate” gives me away, does it? I thought it was the most polite way of saying I disagree with your “assumptions” — another teacherly word. LOL
Re this topic — in Canada we won’t likely ever see metal detectors in schools let alone firearms or security personnel — because it is not politically correct to hint that there might be gangs and children and youth who act “inappropriately.”
But it was good at least to discuss the issue openly. I wouldn’t have even considered this topic for a post two years ago.
August 20, 2008, 10:08 pm