Better school security
Better school security
Since the school shooting tragedy in Newtown, Conn., many ideas are coming to light concerning the safety of schoolchildren and how to control people who misuse a weapon. Here are my opinions.
First and foremost, any person with any history of mental illness (including those on any medication to control mental problems) and/or arrest due to anger-management problems or violation of hunting rules and regulations should not be allowed to possess a firearm of any kind or, particularly, a license to carry a concealed weapon. Perhaps no one in such people's residences should be allowed to keep a weapon they may gain access to. Currently, only felons may not possess a firearm.
Second, having one armed guard in a school is not going to do much to prevent another massacre of students and teachers. The guard cannot be everywhere and can only respond to an incident. Arming teachers and other school personnel is the only way out of this. If the principal in Newtown had had a firearm, the shooter would be dead and she would be alive.
Any teacher who wants should be permitted to do so after having training on how to handle a weapon. A hunter safety course and many hours on a shooting range also would be mandatory. This should be paid for by the state, but the firearm would be purchased by and the property of the teacher.
There is no other solution to this problem.
Ronald P. Goebel
The writer, a former state representative, is a 50-year member of an 84-year-old hunting club with a 100-percent safety record.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Animal abuse
- Food for thought
- Poisoned long ago
- Appreciate caregivers
- EPA not the problem
- Bible under attack
- Trophy shot trumps learning
- Voting insanity
- For their own benefit
- Give thanks for vets
- The real big spenders