Gun Control – Debating the Undebatable
Premise:
No one wants our children to be slaughtered on the campus of their school. No one, with the exception of those mentally deranged people who do the killing.
Problem:
Our constitution recognizes the God given right for our citizens to bear arms. To alter this premise is an intrusion into the basic concept of America. We are not a nation in which the government rules but where the people rule, but delegating power from the people to the government. The power is given to the people by their Creator and that power is enumerated and defined. If the government can change that premise and power structure in any one point than it can inert out power structure and we are no longer America and our constitution is meaningless.
Issue:
There exists in our world, the presence of evil, lurking in the minds of those who by derangement of mind and contamination of soul, perpetrate destruction into our lives. This is unacceptable and we have every right to address it and to solve the problem, if we can find a solution. We cannot stand by and allow the presence of darkness to invade our schools, our churches and our festivals.
Arguments:
- The availability of guns is the problem
- Making guns unavailable to the good people make it impossible for them to deal with the bad people with guns, who will find them anyway.
- The Right to Bear Arms is fundamental to a citizenry in controlling the nature of corruptible power and the usurpation of power by government.
- Although “guns do not kill people, people kill people,” the people who kill people usually chose guns as their means of killing.
- And on it goes…
Presentation:
This debate is contexted as an either/or alternative in which one side will win and the other loose. The end result is a greater divide of our relationships in our nation and the risk that the ramifications of either side’s win will carry with it the consequences that fuel the debate.
There is an alternative approach to this issue. That alternative is to back away from the argument philosophically and to ask the question, how do we protect our children?
We have found a primary solution to the problem of hijacked airlines, bank robberies, and other targets for those who seek infamy at the price of mass destruction or criminal enterprise. What we do it turn the soft target into a hard target.
The cots of this transition is great, but we have decided that it is worth the expense in that it reduces the damage and carnage.
Why then do we require that children assemble together in public education setting and provide a soft target for evil without also providing protection?
Go to any school and look around. There are multiple entrance and exit points and little or no control to those points of entrance/exit. It is convenient for those coming and going, but is it essential and necessary? Of course not.
Solution Number 1 – Control the entrance and exit.
Solution Number 2 – Monitor the area surrounding the campus.
Solution Number 3 – Provide personnel to man the controls and provide them with the means of necessary defense.
Turn the soft target into a hard target. Make it impossible for the evil to penetrate its target.
Problem: The cost
Justification: Military installations do it, banks do it, industries with valuable information or products do it, etc. The real question is: What is the value of our children? Are they not more valuable than anything else in this world?
Conclusion: This is not an analysis of each campus. It is a call for security. A master plan for each campus is necessary, and the criteria for implementation and staffing must follow.
Respectfully Submitted, David E. Fritsche, Citizen, Father, Grandfather and Former Law Enforcement Officer
