After reading Gun legislation illogical, flawed (SN 9/20) I’m left unable to reach Mr. Stevenson’s conclusions. First of all, “schoolhouse violence?” Getting your knuckles rapped by a stern-faced nun or wearing a dunce cap in the corner is hardly violence — at the time, it would have been called proper measures, and even now it’s still called discipline.
Furthermore, I’m not certain where Mr. Stevenson gets the idea of police officers somehow receiving “special arms knowledge.” There are several times where I’ve felt less safe with a police officer next to me at a firing range. I’ve seen blatant ignorance of the rules of gun safety, possibly the worst marksmanship I’ve ever been exposed to, and officers that don’t even know how to unjam their weapons. If these are the people that are to “serve and protect” us, I think our chances of survival are better elsewhere.
Finally, I think Mr. Stevenson needs to look up the word “concealed.” Persons carrying firearms are prohibited from flaunting them, as well as from drawing them except in imminent danger. These are not new rules, and I have every reason to believe they would be even more strictly enforced among armed teachers.
Our grandparents are certainly not the last generation to have stories of schoolhouse violence. However, today’s violence stands a chance of at least being somewhat mitigated by upright citizens willing to put their own lives on the line for the sake of others. Let’s not hamstring those willing to defend the defenseless.
Jack Kramer
economics senior
Support student media!
Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
Discussion
Share and discuss “Armed teachers could benefit schools, help deter violence” on social media.
