ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Red flags & 'what ifs' on guns

| Sunday, March 11, 2018, 9:00 p.m.

In the wake of the Parkland, Fla., mass shooting there has been a rush of words about gun control, mental health and background checks. All of these are legitimate topics. Government officials must stop shielding the NRA, which opposes many issues that are truly safety issues.

President Trump is contradicting himself. He says people in government must stop the deference to and support of the NRA, and at the same time, he is calling for arming teachers — which the NRA has advocated.

I don't believe allowing teachers to be armed is a sound idea. I don't believe in living with “what ifs”; yet in this instance, there are too many “red flags” to not consider the “what ifs.”

Who can guarantee the mental and emotional stability of all teachers? Who can guarantee that an innocent person won't be injured in a gun fight between a teacher and a shooter? While anyone can be taught how to fire, reload and clean a firearm, would teachers get any training that law enforcement and the military get? When and how much firepower is necessary?

What if sexual misconduct between teachers and students caused a confrontation with an angry parent or spouse, with innocent students caught in the middle? If a teachers union called a strike, would armed teachers be walking the picket lines?

There are far too many “what ifs” for supporting the arming of teachers. More stringent gun-control laws are needed, plus better enforcement of said laws.

George A. West

Ligonier Township

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me