I really don’t like talking about gun control, the second amendment, and mass shootings. It’s never an easy conversation and most of the time I feel like both sides aren’t listening to the other and are just waiting for their turn to shout. Gun control is not a ban on firearms. Restricting access to weapons designed for the expeditious termination of human life seems reasonable in a civilized society. There is a balancing act between public safety and the rights guaranteed in the constitution. We have the freedom to speak in the United States but we can’t falsely call out fire in a crowded theater. To do so would be a clear and present danger that would bring about substantive evil our laws are in place to protect against. This particular issue was parsed out by the Supreme Court; we found a balance between free speech and malicious speech.
I don’t believe we’ve found a balance between the second amendment right of bearing arms and the clear and present danger they present to society. Both sides of the balancing act make good points just as both sides make very bad ones too. I think arming teachers is one of the worst ideas I’ve heard so far.
Are we really suggesting turning teachers into killers? One of the loudest arguments I’ve heard about guns in the last week has been “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” I’m not convinced that’s true.
A story broke recently about an armed sheriff’s deputy at the scene while the massacre in Parkland Florida took place. Details have been vague as to why the deputy didn’t charge in like a hero and potentially save the lives of students and staff as bullets from an AR-15 rained down in what should have been a safe place to learn. Perhaps the argument about good guys with guns isn’t as strong as some would have me believe.
Many gun advocates would have me think that taking a human life is the right thing to do when a “bad guy” starts shooting at innocent people. It might be the necessary thing, even justifiable but I can’t imagine it would be easy and living with that choice can be just as haunting as inaction. So what then makes it right?
None of us know whether or not we can make that choice, pull the trigger, until we are standing in that situation. I don’t know why the sheriff’s deputy in Parkland didn’t advance on the shooter. Maybe he was waiting for backup, maybe he was thinking of his family, maybe he just wasn’t ready to charge an AR-15 with his sidearm. Because he didn’t sacrifice himself, because he didn’t save the day, he’s been ridiculed and shamed, called a coward by the President of the United States (takes one to know one?).
Asking someone to give up their life is a big ask and we shouldn’t shame those who cower in fear when shit hits the fan. Unless and until you have been under fire, none of us know what we would do, trained or not. Passing judgement on those who have seen hell is despicable.
Asking teachers to take up arms to protect their students may sound empowering but how can we as a society ask a teacher to shoot a student, even if that student is a “bad guy”. If not teachers, it’s been suggested that military veterans take up arms and patrol schools. As a veteran myself I find this just as disturbing. Former military personnel walking around campuses with firearms ready to shoot anyone who would cause trouble may sound like a good idea but doesn’t that start to look more like a police state or martial law? I do think having veterans on school campuses is a good idea as mentors and guides but certainly not armed enforcers.
“No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” John 15:13
Laying down one’s life for his friends is one thing, taking a life is something different.
I don’t have all the right answers but I know a wrong one when I hear it. Something has to change and I can’t see how more guns ends gun violence.
End Transmission