Opinion
By Stephen L. D’andrilli, Ceo And President Of Arbalest Group, LLC.
New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Nation’s public schools exist for one purpose: to educate our children to become productive members of society. Something hinders that: school shootings.
But public school shootings need not happen and should not happen. Yet, these incidents do happen. And that says something odd and disturbing about our politicians and prominent groups, like the influential teachers’ unions, that let these incidents happen.
When they happen, our nation suffers, and that suffering extends to every American: man, woman, and child. So, then, why do they happen, and who is to blame?
There were four major school shootings in the past three decades: Columbine in 1999, Sandy Hook in 2012, Stoneman Douglas in 2018, and, most recently, Robb Elementary in 2022. Each of these incidents is unacceptable. All were preventable. What do these shootings tell us?
Too many elected officials, school boards, and teachers’ union leaders propose solutions that don’t work. They aren’t interested in listening to parents who, increasingly, have little voice in the matter of their children’s education and no voice in the matter of their children’s personal safety while in school. Their solution to school shootings proposed boils down to one thing: “Get Rid of the Guns.” A simplistic Democratic Party slogan becomes a societal policy stance that endangers the most innocent of Americans, our children.
“Get Rid of the Guns” is what the public hears. It is the universal solution provided and the solitary message conveyed.
It’s a National trend. Federal, State, and affiliated Union officials all espouse it, including the powerful United Federation of Teachers (“UFT’) that represents nearly 200,000 dues-paying members.
The UFT publishes a newsletter called “New York Teacher,” which keeps its members apprised of union policies, positions, and news. As a dues-paying retired NYC teacher, I receive copies of the newsletter.
On May 25, 2022, one day after the Uvalde, Texas incident, the UFT published its“Resolution to stand against gun violence.” In form, this “Resolution” presumes a consensus reached by UFT members.
The last sentence of the UFT’s “Resolution” elucidates where the UFT expends its energy ——
“RESOLVED, that the union supports Governor Hochul’s measures in New York, reaffirms its longstanding support for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, as well as other gun safety laws, and will work with the American Federation of Teachers at the national level both to overcome the obstacles to these commonsense safety measures and to organize other means of harnessing the power of our local and national organizations to confront and end this ongoing national tragedy.”
One month later, on June 16, the UFT published a follow-up article titled “Delegates decry deadly school shooting,” which expanded on its “Resolution to end gun violence.”
I was both troubled and angered by this one-sided news reporting and pontificating.
Reference to “Gun Violence” in the title of the “Resolutions” establishes the theme of the UFT leaders’ sole approach to dealing with school shootings.
The word ‘Gun Violence’ is a narrative tool, a Democratic Party establishment talking point, recited and reiterated constantly, and echoed by the legacy Press. The UFT’s leaders buy into this, regurgitating the same tiring refrain. This is deliberate, and it isn’t benign. The use of the expression “Gun Violence” promotes a dangerous way of thinking, encouraging bad policy choices.
The Nation’s decision-makers divert scarce taxpayer resources away from implementing effective measures to secure our public schools and direct those resources into measures that make schools less safe. The UFT leadership has become a useful pawn of the Biden Administration’s bad policy.
It has learned nothing from the tragedies that have befallen other school districts around the country, so caught up as it is in the fiction of “Gun Violence.”
Dwelling on that fiction prevents consideration of and implementing constructive solutions to school shootings.
I could not sit idly by, allowing the UFT’s remarks to go unchallenged. I wrote a letter to the editor explaining my concern, suggesting concrete ways it could secure the City’s school system. The UFT published my letter on November 3, 2022, adding the title, “Where is the school security plan?” But the editor made changes to the letter I did not authorize, involving a fundamental idea made, thereby undercutting the import of the salient point I sought to convey:
An effective solution to school shootings requires the “hardening” of schools against aggressive armed assault.
The editor struck the word, ‘hardening’ from my letter. That was no accident. But why did the editor do this? That single word encapsulates the basic strategy for securing school buildings from armed assault. Hardening physical structures against armed assault isn’t a novel idea. Federal and State Governments have applied it to airport terminals and courthouses around the Country for many years. Security in these buildings is extraordinarily tight. Protocols are assiduously enforced. That explains why shootings in these structures are extremely rare or nonexistent.
Hardening Structures Against Aggressive Armed Attacks Works.
Seeing this success, many school districts have adopted hardening protocols to thwart school shootings. Those that do and that see to the enforcement of those protocols do not experience the tragedies that afflict districts that don’t use them. Why aren’t these protocols universally applied, given their obvious effectiveness? How can any rational mind fail to apply them? They should, but don’t. The UFT doesn’t and isn’t about to. Why is that?
I and my business partner Roger J. Katz, an attorney, and a former public school teacher himself, have written extensively about this, posting our articles on our website, the Arbalest Quarrel.
And Ammoland Shooting Sports News, the web’s leading Shooting Sports News Service for the Second Amendment, Firearms, Shooting, and Hunting and Conservation communities, republished five AQ articles: January 25, 2016; June 15, 2016; February 26, 2018; March 17, 2018; and May 26, 2022.
By “hardening” our school buildings we protect the life and safety of our children, teachers, and staff. And the use of trained and armed resource officers is imperative in any effective approach to hardening schools against armed aggressors.
But the Biden Administration will have none of that. And, so, the UFT isn’t interested in hardening the City’s schools. And it is particularly resistant to employing trained and armed resource officers in the schools. This stubborn stance is an ominous sign of bad things to come. This lax attitude invites school shooting incidents. It may be only a matter of time before a New York City school suffers this horror.
The Biden Administration bears singular responsibility for enabling this violence.
In a May 2022 Press Briefing, reported in the New York Post, prompted soon after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Biden’s Press Secretary pointedly said:
“ ‘I know there’s been conversation about hardening schools, that is not something he [Joe Biden] believes in,’ Jean-Pierre told reporters at a White House press conference. ‘He believes that we should be able to give teachers the resources to be able to do their job.’”
This wasn’t a mistake by the Press Secretary. The next month, on June 2, 2022, as reported in Breitbart, Joe Biden himself confirmed he doesn’t support hardening school buildings.
“President Joe Biden delivered a 20-minute prime-time address about gun violence on Thursday in which he mentioned a litany of gun control policies without mentioning the need for hardening school security . . .” [and] nowhere throughout his speech did he mention the need to place armed security guards on school campuses or bettering school security overall.”
Since the Biden Administration is adamantly opposed to using armed security officers in public schools and explicitly discourages the application of any steps to harden school buildings to protect children, this dissuades the UFT leadership from pursuing “hardening” as a solution for New York City schools. Many other school systems across the Country follow the Biden Administration’s policy. This invites a shooting incident in New York City schools. And, given the size of the New York City school system, one of the largest in the Nation, a tragedy is likely inevitable.
No one, in their right mind, would dare use, or even think of using, children as sacrificial lambs simply to gain public sympathy and support for a radical agenda directed to the disarming of Americans. Or would they?
Nah! Ridiculous!
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.
Teachers unions exist solely for the benefit of teachers and administrators. Unions have no consideration for the students their teachers impact every day. Students don’t pay union dues. But, you might think teachers would be interested in providing for themselves the level of protection offered by hardening the workplace. Unfortunately, you would be wrong. They would much prefer to destroy the Constitution than do something sensible. My younger sister retired after a lengthy career as a teacher. I watched her journey to the far left systematically take place after being raised in a conservative household as she became more entrenched… Read more »
unions are much like political parties. the leaders of the unions, like the political parties do not vote as, nor represent the people they vote as they want and do not represent what the people want. this is why i do not support unions, especially public sector unions, they are antithetical to our form of government. unions also overwhelmingly support the progressive/leftist party and the degradation of our children and society. getting out of a union is extremely hard to do and sometimes you cannot even do that, you are compelled to support things that you do not agree with.
“Or would THEY?”
YES! They would and are using children as sacrificial lambs to disarm U.S.
Let’s take the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas/Parkland shooting for example. The facts indicate that this school shooting was preventable, if only someone, anyone with authority had intervened.
Face it, Politicians and the teachers unions either do not care about students lives or they have a mental deficiency that prevents them from making sound proven decisions. Schools have to be hardened and there absolutely has to be a responsible adult willing to shoot and kill any and all pieces of scum that tries to hurt our kids. Every bank, government building, arena, stadium in the country is hardened and armed. Our kids are more precious than anything and they think it is not moral to do the right thing. Asinine, there is no other way to put it.
The people responsible for these asinine policies must be held accountable. Naming them accessory to those who murder will put some weight on policy makers who fail to provide a safe learning environment, but always blame guns and others for their incompetence.
Banks often have armed guards, but schools should not? What are we declaring about what we value? Note: I resent even disarming myself to enter the bank, since I harbor no intent to commit any crime.
“…get rid of drugs!” How’s that working out for you?
A lot of gun control and social engineering are based on focusing the political arguments through the filter of whatever event. Hardening schools and arming employees in schools will never fit the narrative of the much desired gun-free populace. Dead children are a tool in the constant effort to disarm us. They will never do anything to completely prevent school shootings. The useful idiots think disarming the law abiding will prevent the events. The State really doesn’t care so long as we eventually give up firearms “for the kids” or whatever.
Over the years I have heard of numerous individual schools and entire school districts that have eliminated the “gun free zone” at their schools in various ways including allowing teachers, with sufficient training, to carry at the school. I have yet to hear of any of those schools being the location of a shooting.
Excellent article, argument well made. Absolutely, hardening the schools is the number one priority. Followed by armed good guys in and around the school. Arming teachers would be good. At least 2, better 3, dedicated armed officers would be better. Those officers should have one job: the physical safety of the students and teachers from violence or injury. Not truancy, not stolen lunch boxes, not drugs outside of confiscation. Not to “investigate” anything. Nothing but 8-9 hours of watchful, armed guarding. Walking the halls, driving around the complex, intercepting potential threats. Or, manning the monitors and mics of the security… Read more »