Check out this interview (see video) with former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and Marc Lamont Hill and Sam Stein at HuffPost Live.
Gingrich raises the idea that high-level school staff should be armed with weapons. He claims that if the principal of Sandy Hook Elementary School would have been armed last week, then maybe the loss of life could have been reduced in the school shooting.
I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement.
Gingrich and others fail to see that arming people still doesn’t address the issue of mental health and the fact that regular people don’t need assault rifles .. PERIOD!
Also, to his point about the principal being armed. What if Adam Lanza would have shot her first? Or, what if she would have fired, missed, and he killed her? The straw-man argument that Gingrich suggests also fails to account for Lanza’s multiple weapons he carried. Against someone with only one weapon for defense, the odds of survival for another mass-killer would still be higher.
Whatever the case is, I think it’s somewhat disrespectful to use grand “What if?” scenarios after such a tragedy. Bottom line is that these people didn’t have to die. It wasn’t because of a lack of defense that they fell to gunfire. It was a broad accessibility to combat-style weapons that played at least a part in it.
I’m all for better security. But, when are we going to get serious about addressing the root causes of gun violence problems?