Arming teachers – Protecting precious people with guns is already a generally accepted practice

by Jim Irvine

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shootings, multiple people have suggested that we must look at arming teachers. This is met by skepticism and thoughts that this approach is radical or politically unattainable. The reality is that it’s already an accepted idea.

Each of our Presidents and former presidents are protected by people with guns. We do that because they are important people, who are likely to be the target of attacks. Several presidents have been assassinated, but many attempts have been thwarted by our nation's Secret Service division.

Secret Service also protects the Vice President, Speaker of the House, Senate President and presidential candidates. They are charged with the safety and security of foreign dignitaries and that safety is affected by people with guns.

If guns were inherently dangerous, we would not allow this danger so close to all these people we are working so hard to keep safe. No one seriously believes all the people would be safer if we removed all their armed protection. The idea is complete silliness.

State governors are protected by armed persons. These are not Secret Service, but Highway Patrol, State Police or other units that carry guns and have other training to affect the safety of their protectee. The bottom line is they are people, armed with guns.

Boards of directors of large companies authorize armed security for CEO's or other critical people in the corporate structure. Safety and security are big business, and everyone knows that security without a gun is not really "security."

Many Hollywood actors and actresses have armed security for protection. Like all the others, they do it for the simple reason that a person with a gun is better able to protect someone from danger than an unarmed person could.

We have Federal Air Marshals (FAM) to protect airplanes, and our national transportation system. For many years before 9-11, and again after the terrorist attacks, pilots have carried guns as a last layer of protection. That program met with resistance about how dangerous it would be, but history has again proven the detractors wrong. While many people still worry getting on a plane, they are far more likely to worry that no one has a gun than worry that a FAM or armed pilot is on board.

From coast to coast and north to south, individual citizens are carrying firearms in record numbers. They have stopped or prevented millions of crimes. Using a gun does not require some secret Jedi power and skill set. It simply requires a basic understanding of how the tool operates, safety rules, some tactics and an understanding of the rules. That is why even in states with no required training, there are very few problems with citizens carrying guns.

Throughout the world, important people, or those who are likely to come under attack are protected by people with guns. This is a commonly accepted practice and no one can successfully argue that in reality, all those people with all those guns actually endanger the ones they are protecting. There is nothing to debate.

Our children have come under attack multiple times, and they will face more attacks in the future. It has been said that "Children are our most precious resource." If that is true, then we have already agreed that they should be protected by people with guns.

Jim Irvine is the Buckeye Firearms Association Chairman, the Buckeye Firearms Foundation President, and recipient of the NRA-ILA's 2011 "Jay M. Littlefield Volunteer of the Year Award" and the CCRKBA's 2012 "Gun Rights Defender of the Year Award."