Guns are weapons that should be feared; it is not something that should be seen every day in schools. We all know that the best way to end gun violence is to limit or prohibit gun ownership. But Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s (National Rifle Association’s) executive vice president, thinks differently. He wants America’s schools to fight fire with even more fire. He is proposing to place armed guards in the nation’s schools, although they are unnecessary. They are costly, they create an uncomfortable learning environment for students, and the chances of another school massacre happening are very slim.
Having armed guards in schools are not only useless, but costly as well. The N.R.A. has not determined how every school could afford the security. While the salaries may vary, armed guards usually cost a school 50,000 to 80,000 dollars a year. The N.R.A.’s proposal would also cost taxpayers 15.4 billion dollars annually. Is it worth it to waste so much money to prepare for an occasion that rarely happens?
The N.R.A.’s suggestion to place armed guards in the nation’s schools is just another way to sell more guns, not to keep the students safe. What message are they trying to send the students by having them greeted by armed guards when they arrive at their school doors? This will only create an uncomfortable school environment for the students. Guns will only frighten them, when the government should be doing everything in their power to help children be safe and secure in their schools.
Chances of another school massacre happening are very slim, and when it does happen, the guards are useless. The last time a school massacre as big as the Sandy Hook shooting happened fourteen years ago (in 1999) at Columbine High School. LaPierre said that an armed presence on school grounds actually would provide what he calls “absolute protection” against an attack. He made a shaky assumption, considering that Columbine High School had an armed county sheriff’s deputy on the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document