Very prophetic

Last Thursday when I opened my morning email I found this in my inbox:

It wasn't an hour later when we first began to hear the news of yet another mass school shooting, this one in Santa Fe, TX that so far has claimed 10 innocent lives.  The NRA (which I am not a member of) has for a while now been advocating for at least some classroom teachers to be armed.   As you might imagine this has been met with much resistance from those who claim teachers are trained to teach, not to be armed security.  I, too, have had some reservations....until now.  Now I'm reluctantly on board with the idea. 

One of the main lessons learned from the Columbine school shooting back in1999 is that shooters must be confronted immediately.  Back then it took SWAT one hour and 50 minutes to muster, brief, and finally enter the school.  The killing was long since over before they got inside.  Speed of confrontation saves lives, and that has been the standard police response ever since....the first cop on the scene enters and engages.

I think back to the Dark Ages and the high school I attended.  As I recall we had five buildings on campus plus two parking lots, spread out over quite a few acres.  Today, due to budgetary constraints, there is probably just one School Resource Officer (SRO) patrolling that same campus.  What are the odds of that one officer being in the right building, on the right floor, at the right time, able to respond immediately to a shooter?  Now imagine how much better the odds would be if there were five armed, trained teachers or administrators scattered around the campus, plus that one SRO, available to respond?  With speed being of the essence, this could save lives!

Of course the key to this is making sure those adults on campus who volunteered were themselves thoroughly vetted and trained.  And not just trained once, but subjected to ongoing training until their response becomes automatic.  This muscle memory is essential as (so I've been told) when the shooting starts, people suddenly exhibit the IQ of a gerbil.  It would be a hefty responsibility these volunteers would take on, and there are serious coordination and liability issues that would need to be worked out, but again, it could save lives!

My state has allowed school districts to permit teacher carry for some time now, but so far I've heard of only a few rural districts who have done so, mainly because they know police response would take too long to do any good.  I think this is an idea that, sadly, should be strongly considered by every district.  Laws can be passed that restrict this or that, and they might be effective, but confronting shooters will definitely save lives.  We can't afford to just sit here and talk about it ad infinitium.  We need action.

I'm S, and I approved this message.

COMPROMISE dammit!

I have quite a few friends and family members who are justifiably proud of their principles, their sense of right and wrong.  To waiver for even a nanosecond is unthinkable.  I respect them immensely.  But they are wrong.

Here's why:  Once again there has been a mass shooting, a massacre at a school, this time in Oregon.  And once again the rhetoric from both the political right and left is in-your-face.  The liberal left would just love to outlaw all guns, just declare them illegal and confiscate them all.  The Tea Party and the NRA say that will happen when you pry them from their cold dead...well...you know the rest.

And nothing gets done.

The left must understand they can NOT close down gun makers, gun stores, private ownership of guns, etc. If they try the matter will be tied up in the courts for years, decades even.  Not gonna happen!

The right must understand that no one is going to knock on their door and rifle through their stuff (pun intended) and seize their guns.  If someone tries, there will be blood in the streets.

Nor can they grab up all the ammo.  There are already hundreds of millions (billions?) of rounds of ammunition in private hands.  If they try it will just give the black market and smugglers another product to profit off of.  Not gonna happen!

Both sides need to suck it up, bend their principles a bit, and find common ground.  To a pragmatist like me this is just so obvious.  They need to sit down and find out exactly what both sides CAN agree on. 

Obviously criminals past and present can not...MUST not have guns.  When they are found in possession of guns, it's off to the lock-up they go.  Look aggressively.  Not enough prison space, you say?  Then MAKE more prison space.

Obviously the mentally unstable can not...MUST not have guns.  Find a way to identify these sadly troubled people.  Look aggressively.  

Surely both sides can agree on this.  Yes, compromise is often dirty, and often leaves a bad taste in the mouth.  But at least SOMETHING gets done.  And something desperately needs to get done.  We all need to quit beating our chests and refusing to bend.

Lets face it:  The only difference between good guns and bad guns is who is holding them.  Lets stop focusing on the guns, and concentrate on who is holding them.

Compromise, dammit!

S