The issue of guns and schools has been a contentious one, and with the recent killings at Virginia Tech and the Amish School in Pennsylvania, the issue has once again been thrust into the light. In their attempt to weigh in with their stand our local editorial board has condemned Katz’ assessment of the current standard policy for school boards when a confrontation occurs by saying:
“There's nothing quite like an armed educator with an assault-response plan. But only if a state of war were to be declared or some Armageddon-like scenario were to unfold. And that's not the case.”Unfortunately, that is the case, or the case the news media would have us believe in. According to news reports guns are the largest threat to Americans, and apparently the presence of gun-free zones are our only solution. The news media has jumped on the topic of gun ownership and the rise in murders, and has sided via editorial control with jurisdictions in the removal of guns from school zones, but as we can see by recent events, the prohibition of guns on school property does nothing to prevent gun violence on school property. Why is it wrong that Katz, a trained individual with a conceal carry permit, seeks to carry her sidearm to school. Not only will she be able to protect herself from her ex-husband, but she could also avert another Virginia Tech or Columbine type situation from occurring in her school.
Frankly, Katz’ assessment of the prevailing policy is right on. The liberal cult of victimology has produced a policy that boils down to:
"… if somebody threatening comes in, you try to avoid eye contact, and do whatever they say…”That my friends is a recipe for disaster, and only absolves administrators from making the hard choices and decisions we pay them to.
When the editorial board states rather condescendingly:
“[t]eachers like Katz, who view conflict resolution as involving a violent weapon and believe that a children-dominated environment is an OK place to exercise their Second Amendment right to weld such a weapon, aren't "teacher" material at all. They should immediately look for a new line of employment; ideally, one with a firing range.”
What they are really saying is they don’t want anyone thinking for themselves or challenging the prevailing viewpoints.
What suddenly makes Katz unsuitable as a teacher, if up until the day she expressed her desire to protect herself while at work, she was for all intents and purposes a model teacher? Is it her desire to challenge the liberal thought process or is it really all about guns and the editorial board’s inability to reconcile their fear of them?
The editorial board is lying when they write:
“Across our nation, educators, parents and community law enforcement personnel are stepping up to the plate to make sure that American schools support and enhance the statistics that repeatedly show they are the safest places for children to be. And that's where the investments should continue to be made -- in the institutions.”
For across America educators, parents and community law enforcement personnel are turning our schools into wastelands of learning. They are stifling creativity and protecting our children from every imaginable threat to include the game of tag and dodge ball, the end result of which will be unhappy, inhibited, deeply incurious children with no spark of creativity or liveliness left in them for everything will be off limits.
That’s not to say that giving them guns is the solution but has anyone considered why a recent best seller has been the book: The Dangerous Book for Boys and not one of the protectionist tomes currently being hawked on the talk show circuit or in liberal think tanks?
School districts nationwide have taken their charge of educating and molding the minds of our young and changed it to be a charge of teaching to the test and diminishing their liability from lawsuits. Even administrators can no longer think critically about topics outside their small scope of expertise, and even their ability to perform their jobs effectively is in question, and yet we are expected to believe them when they propose gun-free school zones and zero-tolerance policies that result in suspensions for 2nd grades that hug their teachers?
If a trained law-enforcement officer can carry his or her sidearm on school property in the course of their duties why can’t a trained teacher or other school employee do the same? Are we to be less trusting of a teacher or an office worker than of a police officer, if they have met the same requirements and training? A gun is a tool, it can be loaded and left on a desk for decades and it won’t kill a single person of its own accord, what makes the editorial board think that Katz a thinking and rational person won’t be able to do the same?
I for one would feel better knowing that a trained and responsible person had a way to protect my children in school instead of them being forced to adopt the policy of “if somebody threatening comes in, you try to avoid eye contact, and do whatever they say.” In Pennsylvania and Virginia we saw the results of that policy, should we have to see it again to have this discussion or can we do so now rationally when our emotions aren’t running high because our children have been murdered by an estranged spouse intent upon killing their ex and whom ever else gets in the way?
Trackbacked by:
Sunday Reading List 10/21/07 from Right Truth
No comments:
Post a Comment