Analysis of Debate on Concealed Weapon

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Instances of the mass shooting in schools and campuses are common in the United States. In 1999, 12 students and a teacher were murdered in cold blood by Eric Harris and Dylan Kledbold. Since that dreadful incident, over 262 institutions have been affected by school shootings. The country has laws that authorize individuals to own guns. Some criminals take advantage of these laws to terrorize students as well as teachers (Hanford, 2008). Hansford (2008) holds that it is imperative to allow the teachers to carry concealed guns to guarantee the safety of students and educators. The parents would prefer the police or military protecting the children to having teachers walk around with concealed weapons. The parents need to realize that there is not enough police to manage all the schools, not to mention classes. Failure to allow the teachers to carry concealed weapons only leaves both the students and instructors at the mercies of the attackers. Teachers have proved that they can protect the children. A case in point is the incidence that occurred at Pearl High School (Hanford, 2008). The school’s deputy principal managed to prevent a mass killing by confronting the shooter with a handgun. Had the assistant principal not carried the gun, a lot of students would have died on that day.

Failure to allow teachers to carry concealed weapons would subject students to immense danger. Once the parents drop their children at school, they entrust the teachers with their security. What they do not realize is that it would be hard for an unarmed teacher to confront a shooter. The parents who advocate for gun-free schools do not understand the advantages of arming the teachers. A majority of the shootings happen because teachers cannot prevent them (Hanford, 2008). For instance, if teachers had guns, they could have stopped the Oregon shooting. Take a case of a teacher who is entrusted with the safety of children in the elementary school. In case of an attack, these children would not defend themselves. Instead, they would all depend on the teacher who can also do nothing since they are unarmed. One cannot imagine who would happen in case of such an incident. However, if the teacher had a concealed weapon, he/she could easily neutralize the attack. We should understand that there will always be evil persons in the society. According to Siebold (2013), it is hard to tell when a criminal plans to attack an institution. Thus, the only way to foil attacks is to be prepared at all times.

There is a correlation between gun-free zones and massacre. Take for instance the cases of John Malvo in Baltimore, Klebold and Harris at Columbine High School, and Charles McCoy in Columbus (Siebold, 2013). All these incidents happened because there were no measures to abate them. If the teachers in these schools had concealed weapons, they could have confronted the attackers and perhaps prevented murder. Gun control laws do not assist in the protection of innocent citizens (Siebold, 2013). Criminals do not care if there are laws that prohibit carrying guns. Indeed, failure to arm the teachers gives the criminals a leeway to terrorize schools. The criminals target weak people since they are easier to intimidate. Thus, they prefer gun-free zones like schools where they are guaranteed of succeeding in their mission.

In history, gun control has been found to work in the favor of notorious murderers. For instance, Stalin and Hitler thrived in their cruel dictatorship due to gun control (Siebold, 2013). Indeed, the guns that are in the hands of criminals are what is converting our schools into killing zones. Allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons will deter criminals from targeting schools. The criminals will no longer view schools as soft targets.