Opinion
TECHNICIAN
PAGE 6 • THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2019
NC should keep schools gun-free North Carolina is once again making headlines for news regarding regressive policies coming out of our General Assembly. This time, instead of creKevin Moye ating horribly bigoted and discriminatory laws, our Staff Columnist politicians have changed it up with a bill that is reckless and ineffective. Being advertised as the “School SelfDefense Act,” the policy proposal would create the new volunteer position of a school safety resource officer (SSRO), which would allow staff or faculty to carr y a f irearm on school grounds. These teachers would need to have a valid concealed carry permit and would be required to complete 16 hours of active shooting training in order to fill the position. To incentivize teachers to take on this responsibility of being an SSRO, a 5 percent salary raise would be offered for those who accept the new role. T he polic y has been met w it h overwhelming disapproval by both the general public and the educators the policy is most oriented toward. An Elon University/News & Observer poll found that 78 percent of educators in North Carolina believed it was a bad idea to arm teachers. Even when informing the participants that these teachers would receive specialized training, 65 percent of educators still disapproved of the concept. One of the major concerns with this bill is whether or not it would actually be effective in serving its intended purpose. Many critics question if teachers who wield these firearms would be capable of minimizing the threat in active shooter situations. A John Hopkins University study found that trained law enforcement have difficulty zeroing in on targets. Lightly trained teachers would likely struggle to hit a moving target in a gun range setting, much less in an adrenalinefilled situation where children’s lives are at risk. Efficacy is of the utmost importance when discussing a bill as risky as this one. Storage of these guns would require them
to be in a secure place, inaccessible to students but also readily available to the SSROs in the case of an emergency. Another serious risk that comes with putting firearms in schools is the possibility of a tragic accident occurring. In the event of a school shooting, allowing another unprofessional gunman to insert themselves in the chaos would make these types of situations even more precarious. Given our nation’s recent history of racialized shootings, like that of Trayvon Martin, there are warranted mounting concerns regarding what may happen in the event of an SSRO being forced to deescalate situations involving disorderly, unarmed students. The bill in consideration enables guns to be carried during any violent situation, not necessarily one involving a shooter. Research has concluded that students of color are punished more severely than white st udent s for t he same infractions, which is causing polic y ana lysts to wonder if t he presence of guncarrying teachers cou ld jeopa rd ize the safety of kids of color. The question grows even larger when taking into consideration Title I schools, which are more prone to these types of incidents because of the at-risk backgrounds of their students. Supporters of the bill are attempting to paint it as a simple matter of school safety, but those against the proposal have been quick to point out their hypocrisy. A true measure to ensure school safety would involve limiting access to firearms for individuals that may carry out these heinous attacks in the first place. In a state like North Carolina, where it is easier to purchase an AR-15 than it is to buy a handgun, enforcing gun restrictions may be one of the simplest ways to strengthen school safety. North Carolina legislators should heed the advice of educators by ensuring that this bill does not get approved. Instead of attempting to bring more guns into what should be safe learning environments, we should ensure that there is as little access as possible for firearms to make their way into our schools.
“An Elon University/ News & Observer poll found that 78 percent of educators in North Carolina believed it was a bad idea to arm teachers.”
Thoughts from our readers: A selection of comments sent to us from readers in short form over the past week, with their sources listed below. In Response to: “I’m a legacy student: It shouldn’t matter”
“NC State acknowledges legacy but it does not get you unfair admission and is not a ‘qualification’ as you suggest! A simple study could confirm that. Being a part of the N.C. State legacy in a family should be an honor for the family and should be honored by N.C State!” -Terry Leitner, via Facebook In Response to: “NC voter ID law must incorporate more student IDs”
“nah, as long as the ID is free I don’t see how you can argue it disenfranchises voters. Not to mention, basically everybody already has an ID” -Jonathan Murphy, via Facebook In Response to: Jonathan Murphy’s comment
“Most do, sure, but not all. There are plenty of people (mostly low income minorities, something the drafters of this law were acutely aware of when they wrote it) that don’t have acceptable id’s and that face relatively substantial obstacles to getting one. So you’re right that most people have id and this scenario doesn’t apply to most, but your implication that these folks don’t exist is entirely wrong. Seriously, there’s tons of information out there on why this law disenfranchises voters, you’re just choosing to ignore it.” -Terry Leitner, via Facebook
