I have to admit that I'm not familiar with all the details of Sandy Hook. After the first few hours I had to turn the TV off because it was too much for me to take in. I have four children, two that are school-age. And while I knew rationally they were safe just blocks away at our local elementary school, my arms ached to hold them that day. I had not heard of teachers abandoning their students, but I did hear about the principal, the psychologist, and Vicki Soto. Sandy Hook was a tragic, heartbreaking incident on a scale that is, to me, still incomprehensible. I watched an interview with a man that accepted some of Vicki Soto's students into his home and I still cry when I think of those children running past her body and escaping into his home. What the children endured is...well, there just aren't adequate words.
I understand if some teachers are not comfortable carrying a gun to school. I would never expect or even want someone that is not comfortable with a gun to use one, let alone carry one around children. It is an immense responsibility and it should be undertaken with the utmost respect and care. But I don't believe that other teachers who may be comfortable should be prevented from doing so, after an appropriate training course is completed and commitment to on-going training is demonstrated. We have armed security in banks, airports, government offices, sporting events, and other places children are allowed. It doesn't make sense to prevent good, honest, law-abiding people the chance to defend themselves and others in schools, even if that means hiring private security or off-duty police officers. I think by now, we have enough evidence to know the people that carry out these mass shootings are not deterred by declaring schools (or malls, or movie theaters for that matter) to be gun-free zones. These people generally commit suicide before they can be overpowered by authorities. Imposing stiffer penalties for carrying guns in school zones is not any kind of deterrent to someone that expects to die and wants to take as many people with them as possible.
I don't believe that I, nor any other law-abiding American citizen, should be denied the Second Amendment right to buy, own, and use firearms based on the horrific actions of a few individuals determined to inflict untold amounts of pain and suffering on others. And the proposed gun control laws do just that. Guns, ammunition, and magazines are neither good nor bad. They are simply tools. When a tool suddenly becomes unavailable, mankind will fashion another to replace it. Anyone with any exposure to the prison system knows that!
I shoot a 9mm semiautomatic pistol with 15-round magazines. And I'd give it up in a heartbeat if I thought it would do any good. But it won't. We still haven't gotten to the heart of the matter. I don't harbor any ill intentions toward my fellow men. But some people do. We need to address THAT issue, and not act from a gut reaction of fear and sorrow. We need to step back and allow thoughtful discussion based on logic and rational thought to develop actions that will have meaningful results. Depriving honest people of the guns, magazines, and ammunition used for self-defense will not keep those weapons out of the hands of criminals and emotionally disturbed individuals.
The truth is the gun control measures proposed will simply be ineffective at safeguarding the people they are intended to protect. Our legislators often are not familiar with firearms before they begin writing and voting on legislation that regulates them. What a shame! Those representatives have an obligation to fully understand the measures they are implementing. The term "assault weapon" is bandied about frequently, but what does it even mean? Most people can't tell you, but they know it's a bad, bad thing. Don't we have an obligation to clearly and fully define what we are banning? The 1994 assault weapons ban made certain, mostly cosmetic, attributes of weapons illegal. Columbine occurred during the time it was in effect. The reason the 1994 assault weapon ban was allowed to expire, with bipartisan support even, is because there were no positive, measurable benefits from it.
What chance did anyone in that school have? The answer is none, really. Because there was no one in that school who was prepared to deal with a gunman. You've heard the expression "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight," I'm sure. The people inside that school didn't even have knives. They had nothing. And what would it matter if he had one 30-round magazine or three ten-round magazines? Someone that is trained and practices regularly can change a magazine in two seconds. Two seconds. That's not enough time for an unarmed teacher to charge the gunman. If we insist on keeping our schools gun-free zones, they will continue to be easy targets. I did read an article by a former Navy Seal that recommended taser guns and ballistic blankets and magnetic doors be placed in schools that would at least buy some time, placing barriers between potential victims and their attackers and allowing police to respond before catastrophe occurs. I think that's a good place to start.
