So I was at home, drinking my first cup of coffee, when I heard on the news that South Dakota had enacted a law enabling school employees such as teachers to carry a gun on the job.
This is my “WHAT!?!” face.
Because nothing can go wrong in that situation, right?
The legislation leaves it up to individual school districts to make the ultimate decision. The majority of districts may not permit the use of guns in schools. There are also compromises included in the law that states that a single officer or volunteer (yes, the article says “volunteer”) can carry the gun and patrol the school.
The theory, if I understand it correctly, is that this would give employees the ability to defend themselves, and their students, in the case of a threat with a gunman. The United States has been stricken with numerous school shootings in the last few years, and it is understandable that the grief and anger can cause government to seriously look into establishing legislation to protect their children. But this is not the way to do it.
What happens when, in an effort to protect their class, a teacher fires their gun and hits a child in the crossfire? What would happen if a teacher accidentally left the gun in their desk and a curious kid picks it up? Or simply, what happens if it just goes off? It’s not like we haven’t seen that on CSI before.
When is the United States going to clue in to this equation:
More guns = more problems.
Correlation does not equal causation, as we are all taught in mandatory stats. Just because a guy murders 20 school children with a gun, doesn’t mean that the gun was the cause of the tragedy. It was the man. It will always be the man. People kill, gun’s don’t.
I get that the country is hurting. A tragedy such as that of Newton is bound to infuriate. But let’s take the time to think about this realistically. You put a gun in a teacher’s hand and you are responsible for the outcome—and I hope South Dakota is ready.