So now the national headlines are all about a school resource officer who didn’t stop the bad guy, instead of keeping the spotlight on the gun control discussion and on the students who were impacted.
And some people here (should go without saying, but disregard if you are not one of them) are only to happy to oblige the NRA and talk about the possible personal failure of this officer instead.
Rather than
- “Why TF do we need an armed officer to go shooting through a school in the first place?” or the closely related point that
- “This is a systemic problem resulting from the prevalence of guns,”
by going after the school resource officer, we’re instead buying into the NRA’s ‘it’s the people, not the guns’ position:
- “This tragedy could have been averted with better gun use or better people!”
(e.g. it’s this officer that failed by not using his gun, rather than our entire system that failed by putting him in the position to potentially have to use it in a school in the first place), or
- “This tragedy could have been averted with more gun users!”
(in case one of them turns out to be a ‘coward’ like, supposedly, this officer).
Why are some people here doing this?
The NRA position is and always has been that our plague of mass shootings is a people problem, not a gun problem.
This school resource officer story is perfect for them. Once again, it all could have been averted if only the people were better (and meanwhile, we just forget about the guns).
The position of everyone else in America right now should be that this is B.S.!
Civilian citizens and even law enforcement officers should never have to be in these positions in the first place. The problem isn’t cowards who won’t shoot their guns against bigger guns. The problem is that there are so god damned many—and big—guns.
In short, do not engage in the 'if only' game of criticizing the 'cowardice' of the school resource officer and bemoaning the fact that he 'maybe could have helped to avert this tragedy' if he had been brave enough to use his weapon. Because in doing that, you implicitly affirm the NRA's position that an additional firearm in the hands of a 'good guy,' 'properly used,' is a valid response to, and solution to the problem of, school shootings.
Let’s get away from “Why didn’t that coward stop that school shooting?!” which presumes and posits the NRA’s point that a good guy with a gun should be able to stop a school shooting in the first place.
Let’s get back to:
“Why TF is an 18-year-old school kid able to get ahold of AR-15 and carry it around town like a bag of groceries, and what are we going to do to ensure that that’s no longer the case?”
Don’t debate about better training (read: more guns). Demand fewer guns.
Don’t talk about more and better heroes (read: more guns). Demand fewer guns.
Don’t engage on “hardening” targets (read: more guns). Demand fewer guns.
The NRA talking points are:
- Guns don’t kill people, people kill people
- The right answer to guns is more guns, better training, and better heroes
As soon as we get down into the weeds on whether the people holding the guns are doing the right thing with them, we are supporting the NRA’s position: the problem isn’t the guns, the problem is how people are using them.
We have to avoid that temptation. The problem is not how people (regular people, teachers, students, cops, whatever) are using guns. The problem is the guns.