Don’t do it
The mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where an intruder killed 20 students and six adults with an assault rifle in minutes, sent shock waves across the nation.
The shootings erased any sense of security that our schools were a safe haven for our youngsters. The search began that day for a way to keep our children safe from the violence of armed intruders, and it continues today. There have been a wide variety of solutions proposed to solve the problem, and one was introduced last week in the Pennsylvania Legislature by state Sen. Dan White, R-Indiana County, allowing school boards to arm teachers and other employees, who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon and trained in the use of firearms.
Eighteen states currently allow school employees to have guns in schools.
Pennsylvania law forbids guns in schools, but there is a carve-out for firearms used for lawful purposes. White said his bill would clarify ambiguous language and offer the option of extra protection for rural districts that rely on state police.
The proposal was immediately panned by some.
Sen. Anthony Williams said it is a bad idea to place such a grave responsibility on people whose principal interest is educating children. The Philadelphia Democrat objected to what he called “the rush to arm people” as a solution to such a complex problem.
Susquehanna Township police Chief Robert Martin said the proposal means injecting more weapons into schools, which could cause confusion in an emergency. Armed employees must be well-trained physically and mentally like law enforcement officials, he noted.
We agree with Williams and Martin that introducing more guns into our schools is not a good idea. It might seem like an easy solution to a complex problem. But the more the ramifications and consequences are considered, it should be rejected outright.
School shootings would be a challenge for experienced law enforcement officials, never mind teachers or other school employees who have never been under such unique pressures before. The possibility that the lives of students or other teachers could be taken in such situations should give everyone pause.
However, we do realize that there has to be some increased security in our schools, and that’s why we support the Uniontown Area School District’s decision last spring to have trained security carrying firearms in all of its buildings. The board granted Superintendent Dr. Charles Machesky permission to seek retired municipal and state police officers for the positions.
We think it makes much more sense to have retired police officers carry out this task rather than teachers and other school employees who may have never fired a weapon in such pressure situations. In addition, teachers should be focused on teaching and shouldn’t have to worry about when and how to reach for a firearm.
One concern is some districts may look for the cheap way out by arming teachers and other school employees. However, when it comes to the safety of our children, no expense should be too great. While the hiring of additional security officers is an expense, it shouldn’t be anything that will bankrupt a school district.
Of course, it’s hard to tell if this legislation will be passed by members of the state Legislature. Considering the state Senate is only in session for eight days before it recesses for the year, it’s unlikely that anything this controversial will pass that quickly.
Still, it’s an election year, and anything can happen. That’s why local residents would be wise to contact their legislators and tell them to vote against the measure if it comes up for a vote.
Simply put, this is not the right solution to this complex problem. We hope our legislators will resist the urge to do the easy and cheap thing and do the right thing by voting against the bill.