A major topic for debate in United States politics has revolved around gun control. The country is split between citizens being able to own guns or not, specifically guns in schools. Traditionally, schools are gun free zones, but recently the NRA has recommended that schools should be guarded by someone with a gun. An example of a time were the NRA thinks a school could have used an armed security guard is at Sandy Hook Elementary. The tragedy could not have been helped with one guard with a gun.
There is a reason why this border hasn't been completely crossed. Some schools around the country have armed guards, but this really doesn't solve any problems. By having these guards, your basically fighting fire with fire and very possibly making the situation worse. The NRA continues to believe that the right to own a gun is a necessity for citizens and should not be taken away. This border border puts children in danger by crossing it. Something needs to be done to protect children at school instead of attempting to protect them with an armed guard. Having an armed guard at a school only provokes criminals to bring guns to school. The NRA says that the only way to protect children from a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. I do not agree with this strategy and there has to be a better solution for this problem.
I understand that having an armed guard at a school may not be the ideal approach to protect schoolchildren, but at the same time, I do feel this is the most practical. I'm not sure I would agree with you when you said that "having an armed guard at a school only provokes criminals to bring guns to school." If anything, I would think that this would deter criminals from carrying a firearm to a school. Without an armed guard, there is nothing to prevent a criminal from being violent, for there is no risk to the criminal. An armed guard would not only deter the criminal, but I feel like it would also put the minds of the children and teachers at ease.
In regards to the gun vs no gun border on whether or not citizens should be allowed to carry firearms, I would remain on the border. I honestly believe that even if it was ruled illegal for citizens to carry a weapon, this would do almost nothing to stop such school attacks. After all, we're talking about criminals, and criminals do not exactly heed to the law. In essence, absolutely denying the right to carry a weapon would not do much in that nothing is stopping a criminal to illegal purchase/carry that weapon. However, I do think society would benefit by having tighter restrictions on who can and cannot have a weapon.
I personally believe that having an armed guard will not be enough to detour someone who really wants to bring a firearm into a school. One person can not effectively protect a school of 2700 hundred students I don't care how big your gun is. Where I live in Maryland, every high school has a county cop on school grounds at all times and that isn't enough to completely detour some people for stupidity. However, I do think that the presence not of an armed guard but of an actual police officer is, to an extent, beneficial and does detour other types crime and can help diffuse other non-gun related incidents that are much more likely to occur.
I agree that having an armed guard would not have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. I think that there needs to be a greater focus on revamping the entire way in which people in the United States can purchase guns. I recently watched a special report on CNN where a man went undercover to a gun show and purchased automatic weapons. The man buying the guns was never questioned, given a background check, or even asked for his license. This is very scary because it means that potentially there are many guns out on the street that are not even accounted for. I don't think that "stricter background checks" will have any impact on the buying of guns because we don't even seem to utilize background checks now. There are so many illegal guns on the street that it seems nearly impossible to account for all of them. I am not sure how the United States is going to try to regulate guns from now on, but armed guards is certainly not a deterrent that I think would be useful.
I understand that having an armed guard at a school may not be the ideal approach to protect schoolchildren, but at the same time, I do feel this is the most practical. I'm not sure I would agree with you when you said that "having an armed guard at a school only provokes criminals to bring guns to school." If anything, I would think that this would deter criminals from carrying a firearm to a school. Without an armed guard, there is nothing to prevent a criminal from being violent, for there is no risk to the criminal. An armed guard would not only deter the criminal, but I feel like it would also put the minds of the children and teachers at ease.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the gun vs no gun border on whether or not citizens should be allowed to carry firearms, I would remain on the border. I honestly believe that even if it was ruled illegal for citizens to carry a weapon, this would do almost nothing to stop such school attacks. After all, we're talking about criminals, and criminals do not exactly heed to the law. In essence, absolutely denying the right to carry a weapon would not do much in that nothing is stopping a criminal to illegal purchase/carry that weapon. However, I do think society would benefit by having tighter restrictions on who can and cannot have a weapon.
I personally believe that having an armed guard will not be enough to detour someone who really wants to bring a firearm into a school. One person can not effectively protect a school of 2700 hundred students I don't care how big your gun is. Where I live in Maryland, every high school has a county cop on school grounds at all times and that isn't enough to completely detour some people for stupidity. However, I do think that the presence not of an armed guard but of an actual police officer is, to an extent, beneficial and does detour other types crime and can help diffuse other non-gun related incidents that are much more likely to occur.
ReplyDeleteI agree that having an armed guard would not have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. I think that there needs to be a greater focus on revamping the entire way in which people in the United States can purchase guns. I recently watched a special report on CNN where a man went undercover to a gun show and purchased automatic weapons. The man buying the guns was never questioned, given a background check, or even asked for his license. This is very scary because it means that potentially there are many guns out on the street that are not even accounted for. I don't think that "stricter background checks" will have any impact on the buying of guns because we don't even seem to utilize background checks now. There are so many illegal guns on the street that it seems nearly impossible to account for all of them. I am not sure how the United States is going to try to regulate guns from now on, but armed guards is certainly not a deterrent that I think would be useful.
ReplyDelete