CNN reports on the developments in Texas to combat school shootings. The problem as they see it is this:
"When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that's when all of these shootings started. Why would you put it out there that a group of people can't defend themselves? That's like saying 'sic 'em' to a dog," Thweatt said in a story published Friday on the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Web site.
The solution as they see it is this:
Trustees approved the policy change last year, and it takes effect when classes begin this month. For employees to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun, must be authorized to carry by the district, must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and must use ammunition designed to minimize the risk of ricocheting bullets.
This is one of the common arguments about the benefits of arming the "good guys" so they can protect us from the criminals. David Thweatt, superintendent of the Harrold Independent School District, who is quoted above, seems to think the only way to deal with this problem is to resort to a combat mentality. The problem with that is we're not talking about the terrorists; we're not talking about an armed jihad. Isn't the typical school shooter a disturbed teenage boy who carries a few weapons to school and shoots up the place? Doesn't he get those weapons from the family arsenal? Wouldn't a law like this only exacerbate the situation? Shouldn't we address the real problem?
Part of the problem is that we have too many disturbed teenage boys. Increased awareness and mental health policies are what's needed. The rest of the problem is there are too many guns. I wrote about this before, which generated very interesting comments. Far from being dissuaded, I'm back to the original premise. There are too many guns and too easy access to them.