To Arm or Not to Arm?
David Persons, a host on radio's WEUPTalk in Huntsville, Alabama and a member on USA Today's Board of Contributors, shares his opinion on arming teachers in the classroom. Persons has no political background professionally, but does have a political agenda: not to place guns in the hands of teachers, but instead place police officers in the classrooms. Is this a realistic solution to preventing school massacres? President Obama and the National Rifle Association believes it may the best compromise available. Persons writes to the voting American, the mothers and fathers. He wants to gather support against arming teachers, and uses the risk of a child dying to vividly make his argument.
Persons
interviews Alabama Senator Bill Holtzclaw, a conservative Republican
and a military trained marksman, to provide a credible political
opinion to support his agenda. Holtzclaw, who has extensive training
in weaponry and military combat, is strongly against arming teacher
in the classroom. Even though he is pro-gun, Holtzclaw states there
are too many variables to placing a gun in a teacher's hand rather
than placing a trained officer into the classrooms. Teachers are
untrained, unsure when to draw, and when to shoot. Not to mention the
bystanders (the children) and the possible collateral damage that
could occur. And where is the support for the teachers? Are they
immune to if an innocent bystander is hurt or if the cause of the
shooting is claimed unjust? Teachers are trained to handle children
and to educate them, but not to draw a gun and make the decision of
firing a weapon.
Person's
agenda is further supported by the Atlanta shooting at Price Middle
School. Last month, a student shot another child in the neck. A
trained officer, who was located at the school, disarmed the student
and swiftly ended the shooting. Even though multiple shots were
fired, no other injury occurred and a possible massacre was
prevented. This incident showed how a trained professional handled
the situation and how injuries were prevented.
Wonder
how the children feel about police officers' presence in the schools?
Well, Persons addresses that as well by following Officer McDuffie
around Butler High School. Only positive things were mentioned- like
how the officer knew children by name and had a good rapport with
several students. Persons also uses a poll, stating “slightly more
than 60% of Americans oppose arming teachers,” to support his
cause.
Initially,
I agreed that arming teachers was not the solution to preventing
school massacres. Having untrained personnel making life or death
decisions did not appeal to me. Also thinking in context of the
teachers, they choose their profession to teach, not to shoot. How
just is arming a teacher and expecting them to decide what many
trained professionals find difficult to do- to shoot or not to shoot?
Persons provided an excellent information to support his cause:
interviewing a pro-gun Republican Senator from one of the states
considering arming teachers, providing actual incident of a police
officer disarming a student, following an officer around a school to
get a real life account, and providing an American opinion poll. Many
would consider this argument in support of his agenda successful;
however, I believe both sides should be represented. A one sided
argument is not much of an argument. Persons' editorial reinforced my
current beliefs, but I consider it unsuccessful due to lack of a
bipartisan consideration. Arming vs. not arming: I know now why not
to arm, but why would one want to arm? If he provided views on why
people would want to arm, the article would have been well-rounded
and a solid argument, thus people making an educated decision, and
not a one-sided one.
Site:
Person,
David. “Instead of Arming Teachers, Hire Police: Column.”
USATODAY. February
17th,
2013. Web. 18 February
2013.http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/17/armed-teachers-guns-schools/1926373/