The Presence of a Trained and Experienced Armed Officer did not Deter Nikolas Cruz, How Would Arming Teachers Achieve That?
President Trump respond to Nikolas Kruz massacre of 17 people by suggesting arming some teachers, arguing that such move would make this types of attack less likely because a potential attacker would be aware that some teachers are armed, it turns out that there was a trained armed officer on site, who was aware of an active shooter but did not intervene, his presence did not deter the shooter nor will Trump’s approach solve the root cause.
Deputy Scot Peterson, who has been a resource officer at the Parkland School since 2009, and saddled with the responsibilities of the safety of staff and pupils watched on for four minutes, while the attack lasted for six minutes. The reason he did not go in to stop or kill Nikolas Cruz as expected of him according to Scott Isreal, the County Sheriff is unknown.
However, if an experienced and a well trained officer in Scot Peterson felt powerless and unable for whatever reason that may yet come out in the course of the investigation to intervene and stop the carnage, how can you expect someone whose primary responsibilities are to nurture, care, raise and teach the pupils who would receive a crash course in combating an active shooter to do so?
It is ridiculous enough that a learning environment is militarized by armed officer because Americans cannot be detached from their love for Guns but arming teachers is another low but perhaps not a surprising one. The National Rifle Association have flown the idea of arming teachers in the past, as a way of preventing school massacre and President Trump, a beneficiary of NRA donations repeating their ideas is may be not a surprise..
The NRA members are not the only one interested in protecting the constitution, every American is interested and devoted to the constitution i believe, but the forefathers of America who came up with the constitution did not do so with the intention that in no circumstances should it be touched even when a change or an amendment is critical and necessary to improve safety and protection of life. Even Judge Antonin Scalia in the case of District of Columbia vs Heller ruled that “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”, so the idea of introducing gun control as a measure to improve safety and protect life is not a means to abolish US gun rights as claimed by the NRA, it is in fact in line with the primary responsibility of any government which is to protect its citizen against arm.
The President may blame mental health, which may well be the case, but Nikolas Cruz would not be able to kill 17 people in six minutes if guns are not readily available, hence availability of guns and their sophistication has a direct association with number and severity of every attack, to shy away from this obvious fact is wrong, arming teachers may not have stopped him, in fact he may well target and kill the armed teachers first before going on a rampage.
Instead of asking teachers to go and face a rampaging gunman and turned the campus to a battle ground, why not introduce checks to stop or at least reduce the chances of an unfit person laying their hands on guns?