There
has been a great deal of talk in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary
School shooting. I’ve been reluctant to
chime in sooner because I think people have been too quick to do so and in the
process, some pretty illogical utterances have been broadcast over the
airwaves. Worse are those who are taking
the tragedy to advance a political cause which is as specious as it is
manipulative and opportunistic. I am
speaking of guns and the laws which seek to limit the same. As a teacher, my friends have asked me my
thoughts on how to stop further school shootings. I’m quick to admit that my current profession
provides no insights. While I have some
thoughts on the issue, I’m at a loss to explain the unexplainable or to propose
a strategy of defense against the indefensible.
One
of the first and most often attacked targets is, of course, guns. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a
gun owner and therefore, what I say on the subject should be understood in that
light. New gun laws and gun restrictions
would not have prevented the events in Sandy Hook Elementary (the shooter stole
the weapons he used) and so should not be considered as some special elixir for
gun violence in schools. The only thing
such measures do is prevent law-abiding citizens from getting guns and making
it a one-sided fight. Connecticut has
some of the toughest gun laws in the country and the cities with equally strong
anti-gun measures are some of the most violent.
However,
there is one proposed suggestion about which I’m not sure – arming
teachers. I would feel comfortable
carrying or using a gun should I be unfortunate enough to need to do so. Yet, I’ve been teaching for eighteen years
and there are a great many former colleagues that I would not want anywhere
near a gun. Moreover, one or two
teachers or a principal with a gun cannot possibly cover the size and scale of
many public schools today. One would
have to arm a certain percentage of the staff relevant to where their classes
are to make it effective. Additionally,
it is not practical or economically viable for school districts to initiate
such a program and the pre-requisite training and screening that would almost
certainly go along with such a policy.
Others
have pointed to a culture of violence and that is certainly something that
should be examined; however, it is beyond the scope of government – or should
be. Comedian George Carlin once said
that he would rather his kids watch two people make love than kill each other
but the way our culture has developed is to put greater restrictions on sexual
content in programs and video games than that of violence. Rabid anti-gun advocates are quick to move
away from this conversation because it has the potential of derailing their
attempts to take advantage of this situation.
However, the cultural elements must be considered. To that end, consider this. In a country with a long and uninterrupted
history of gun ownership, such incidents are new – in the last 15 years. Therefore, guns cannot be a major cause of
this but something that has changed over the same time period. To answer this concern, one must turn towards
our culture and the traits that have altered and changed over this period.
I
do not profess to have all the answers though I am aware enough to know, based
on past experiences and experiments, what will not work. The anti-gun crowd is hoping that a wave of
emotionalism will do where logic and evidence failed in the past. Meanwhile, a handful of people are looking at
what types of entertainment we are viewing and enjoying. In the end, twenty-six people are dead and
nothing we do will change that. How we
respond could prevent the next occasion but that is not guaranteed. The level of anguish stems partly from our
inability to answer questions. Our
answers lie within a disturbed young man who decided to end it all after his rampage. Perhaps, our future lies in psychology and a
better treatment and understanding of those in need. It is a good place to start.
No comments:
Post a Comment