I’m a liberal leaning fellow who has never owned a gun because I most likely would misuse it in some way. So, my assertion above doesn’t count much unless you are already a part of the choir.
But Ralph Peters agrees with me and he is a gun lover, retired lieutenant colonel who often appears on Fox, sometimes espousing conspiracy theories I dislike. Peters made the most compelling case I’ve seen for banning assault weapons in yesterday’s New York Post, and I want you to read it, so I’ll keep this short.
Simply put he argues these are military weapons whose sole “purpose is to kill human beings.” In response to the notion that that “Guns don’t kill people, people do” he says “But people with rapid-fire weapons kill a lot more folks a whole lot faster.”
As for the idea of arming teachers he writes: “When the shooting starts, even the best-trained, most disciplined soldiers and cops — US Army Rangers or NYPD SWAT members — don’t put every round on target. The notion that a guard or teacher who goes to the range once a quarter would keep kids safe is profoundly divorced from reality. ‘Friendly fire’ would simply add to the danger.”
I’m one who feels sorry for Scot Peterson, the police officer stationed at the school since 2009, apparently well liked, even garnering an award one year. One doesn’t maintain an edge for battle hanging around most schools. My guess is that he lost the cop’s instinct for danger and ability to respond to it. He’d become more a staff member than a cop, so even with that past training and a gun he froze. Are we assuming teachers with guns are going to become super heroes? Not to say someone won’t, but it is a dubious plan.
Again, we don’t need more teachers armed, we need less assault weapons easily attainable to attack their schools with.