Dear Evelyn and James,
After the incidents across the country, and the outlandish
dialogues that I have read/overheard regarding school safety, I felt compelled
to put my thoughts down. Some bad people have done some bad things, and, as
always, no one can seem to agree on A) what is the worst part of the whole
thing, and B) how to handle it. I won’t be around forever, and I doubt that (please,
God) we will never have to deal with the situations like others have had to go
through. But I thought you’d like to know where I stand. You two are smart, and your mother and I have never talked down to you. I won't change that now.
Some have suggested that we give teachers guns and teach them
to use them. Essentially, training our teachers to be soldiers. Then there are
those who have suggested that we put soldiers in the schools with you, for your
safety—or, former soldiers, at the very least.
Hiring veterans to patrol our schools? Really? Our public
school systems are severely underfunded as it is. Where is all of this money
supposed to come from? Could every city in the country afford this solution?
Kettering has, what, fifteen public schools in the district? Let’s say you
hired one vet for each (because one armed, specially trained person is a deterrent,
right?). Guess what? Now their income is factored into the school/city budget.
And how much should we pay these fine folks for protecting our children?
Certainly NOT minimum wage. That would be an insult, right? They deserve more,
right? So how much is a parent's piece of mind actually worth? Suddenly, we
have to put a damned dollar sign on our kids' lives. Because do we want the
security personnel taking the same the same attitude of “They don’t pay me enough
for this,” that the stereotypical youth
employee takes when tasked with a job they feel is below them? This “suggestion”
of hiring veterans is a knee-jerk reaction from people who, I believe, have a
good intention, but no real sense of how things actually work. This would mean
a spike in taxes as these individuals would be city employees and allotted the
same access to benefits (which are funded by tax dollars). They would need the
same kinds of certifications and training other teachers receive for things not
related to academics—things like first aid and recognizing the signs of abuse;
I mean, I can’t go into my daughter’s classroom and read a freakin’ kid’s book
without VIRTUS training courses and follow-up certification.
So, is the solution volunteers? Maybe. But can we count on
volunteers to act the way we need them to when it really counts? Think about
it: what comes to mind, first thing, when you hear “volunteer”? Honestly, I see a person, usually elderly, working as something
they have no real skill in, trying to do a good thing. I see teens who want to
pretend they are the next generation of Hippies. I see folks who look like they
don’t really want to be there. Again, I should emphasize that I am describing
what I think of when I hear someone say “volunteer.” I know there are those who
go above and beyond, like the ones who respond to natural disasters. And I applaud
their courage and humanitarian actions—obviously from the comfort of my own
comfy couch with power reclining feature. Because I am not trying to be holier
than thou. I am who I am. I have volunteered before, and I know my experiences.
Truthfully, it was a thankless and off-putting affair. Those whom I was
involved with treated me as little more than a servant and then seemed to act
as though my actions did not meet their high standards. But I was not on guard
duty. I was not responsible for the personal safety of anyone. I was not on
patrol, ready to kill if need be.
If this is a “mental health” issue, as it has been claimed,
then—and forgive my bluntness—are veterans really the best choice? One needs
only to google “VA” and “mental health” to start to understand why I ask. Has
our news not been plagued over the last decade with reports of how cripplingly
ineffective our Veterans Affairs offices have been in handling our veterans’
needs? Specifically, those of vets suffering from PTSD? Furthermore, if this
really is a mental health issue, how exactly would having armed veterans in the
schools deter someone who is mentally unstable? (The only sure-fire solution is
a complete and total police state, because crazy people are like Pokémon: you
can’t catch them all.) Yet, the answers being proposed are “solutions” though
of by rational minds and presented to equally rational minds—regardless of
political jokes and commentary. Clearly, those who enact these tragedies are in
no way rational. Suggesting that the possibility of dying is a preventative notion
to someone who sets out to kill a large number of people is ludicrous. The
school in Florida had and armed guard; the hotel in Las Vegas has a small army
of armed personnel; the Dallas shooter was taking out cops! The threat of death
will not make an individual “think twice” about unloading on innocent people. The
majority of the time, these individuals end up killing themselves anyway, or
are killed by law enforcement; suicide-by-cop is a real thing, one need only change
the career to have suicide-by-soldier—or former-soldier, as the case may be. And
the whole notion of placing veterans in our schools only brings to light
another large problem that we, as a country, face: why do we have so many
displaced veterans in the first place? Which leads to longer, more drawn-out
arguments.
And there it is…
The systemic issue is not firearms, nor is it health care or
baseless wars. The real problem is that there is just too much to argue about.
Governing is like giant magic show: start talking about one topic, then another
subject is brought up to distract from the first, and suddenly the second topic
is forefront and the first has vanished. And then, because that first trick is
old hat by now, it is spiced up with the meta-argument (that I am apparently
making) about arguing about arguing about too many things to get anything accomplished.
That is why I have offered no solutions of my own design. It would be
pointless. There is ALWAYS going to be someone to play Devil’s Advocate and rip
the idea apart. The media is full of pundits who do so with great joy—while
offering no real solutions of their own, mind you. And when pushed for a
solution, it is a common smoke screen tactic to ask asinine questions or to
simply question the motive of the person seeking the answer.
To get anything to change, it is going to fall on the people
of this country to demand it. Demand it loud enough. Demand it consistently.
Demand it unwaveringly. That is not to say I am calling for insurrection. Far
from it. Peace and order win the day. Diplomacy wins the day. Both sides need
to realize that. Both sides need to give and take. Both sides need to pull up
their fenceposts and consider moving the party lines! Why can’t there be
staunch conservatives who are in favor of stricter gun laws? Why not have a
bleeding-heart liberal who values human life and their Christian faith above anything
else? Why not accept that Democrats are all in favor of the 2nd Amendment?
Why not believe that Republicans want the middle class to prosper? Yes, it may
mean that assault rifles are deemed illegal to purchase (I mean, their name
alone tells you what they are intended for!). But it also may mean that parents
can send their kids to school EVERY DAY, and not have the nagging phantom of
fear in the back of their head that their child might not come home that day.
Believe it or not, there are those of us out here in the USA who have no
problem with someone having a hunting rifle on a gun rack in their truck, or a
person having a pistol strapped to their hip while taking a stroll through the
mall. But, myself, I simply ask that you respect my comfort level, too. You
feel safer with your gun. Fine. But you don’t need it at my daughter’s Girl
Scout picnic. And the argument of “just in case” is ridiculous! It’s called
common sense. Your right to carry should not supersede my right to be calm and
relaxed in an environment designed for such.
I am not opposed to having security measures in place at my
children’s school. Yes, it is an inconvenience when I am in a hurry and have to
provide two forms of ID, a retinal scan, a positive visual ID from the child,
and a DNA test to prove parentage (of course, I hyperbolize). And you’d better
believe that the idea of police officers stationed at, or near a school would
ease my mind as well. But I remember the “security guards” at my high school.
They were fat, middle-aged men who sat in their cars and monitored the parking
lots for skippers while chain-smoking themselves into an early grave. Living, heavy-breathing
punchlines.
So, who can we trust to guard our kids? Right now we’ve got angry,
depressed vets with little-to-no access to health care from the government they
served; police officers that we cannot trust not to shoot unarmed civilians; over-zealous
altruists who see terrorists around every corner; just your average Joe
Gunowner who already has a full-time job that more than likely won’t let him
take time off to guard a school with his .9mm Berretta; or, any or all of the
above who are hired by the city and paid with compliments because taxpayers
voted down a levy to allot funding for the positions they are all crying should
be filled by the above.
This is where the idea of give-and-take comes in. Taxpayers:
we all want more money in our pockets, but, again, I ask how much is the life
of a child worth? If you really want quality, trained professionals to protect
the schools, you have to pay them. That might mean the <insert your favorite
sport here> team goes without new uniforms for the next decade; or that the
school has to give up wi-fi; or that, well you get the idea. I understand that
no one wants to pay MORE TAXES, but if this is the solution you want, you will
have to pony-up. And keep in mind, this is at the local-level of government. But
that does not fix the mental health problem, does it? That is going to require
more federal taxes. Break out those check books! Oh, not you, upper 1%. You’re
all good. I’m only talking to the people who are eking out a living and think you
are horrible monsters. I’m talking to the people whose children are literally
in the crosshairs. But don’t get me wrong, you could send a bit of cash to old
Uncle Sam out of the kindness of your hearts. No? Didn’t think so, but it was
worth a shot—after all, it worked on Ebenezer Scrooge.
I believe we all want this to end. We all want something to be
done about it. No one, however, can seemingly come up with a solution that doesn’t
involve radical and illogical change. Kids bringing guns to school to kill
other kids? Let’s add more guns to the equation! (Or, let’s get rid of all
guns!) 1% of our society making all the money? Let’s rob them blind! (Or, let’s
try trickle-down economics again and trust that they will spend their billions
bettering the country!) Running out of fossil fuels? Drill, baby, drill! (Or, everyone
should walk everywhere, always!) You see? It is a cycle of inane stupidity. One side says
something drastically outrageous, so the other side responds in kind. The truth
is that sharing memes on Facebook and posting contradictory witticisms is only
strengthening the argument for the other side.
At the end of the day, I don’t want to bury either of you. I will do anything to keep you safe, and I will suffer to do so. I will
eventually embrace whatever solution arises from this, but we need a solution.
First and foremost. It should be logical. It should be malleable. It should be
open to ridicule. That is how laws work.
