2018-04-19 / Letters

Armed staff still the best solution for school safety

To the editor:

Donna Popke’s response to my letter misses the point. My point is that I don’t believe the young people who speak so perfectly, have the left-wing patter down so well, and serve the anti-gun agenda so well, are spontaneous. I believe they are coached, rehearsed, and used as props to tell one side, the un-American side, of a very two-sided story. They are too young to know any better and they love the adult attention. I listen to Rush, and I acknowledged it, so as not to be accused of plagiarism. As we determined in a phone conversation, Donna had me confused with a different Charles Knapp, for whom she had worked years ago. The description of Hogg is Rush’s; that of the girl is my own. She does look like a skinhead, her name is Gonzalez, and she is too perfect. I didn’t hear the 11-year old but I heard a similar one at a Bergman town hall last year, and thought that her presentation was just too perfect to be her own. He grandmother, standing next to her, was clearly using the child as a prop.

I don’t doubt that schools have security; Alan addresses that in his editorial, a very good editorial, factual, thought-out, and to the point. But I still believe that my proposed solution is the most logical. Anonymously armed staff, just moving around normally, are the best deterrent. They create uncertainty, which perps don’t like. Same as with general concealed carry; John Lott’s studies show that places with a measurable percentage of the population legally carrying concealed have lower on-person crime rates than places without such carry. More guns in the hands of honest people mean less crime. Perps don’t want to get shot.

Charles Knapp
W. Harbor Hwy
Maple City

Editor’s note: The editorial referred to was written by me, Alan Campbell, and appeared in the April 12 edition.

Return to top

I don't get why the attacks

I don't get why the attacks on the high school students. They are articulate, highly motivated, and fearless. Good for them. If they got a little help regarding what to say from a few adults, so be it. You yourself said you got part of your comments from Rush Limbaugh. What's the difference? At any rate, none of that really matters much. What matters is which of the various proposals for lessening gun violence in the US makes sense and which don't. Let's drop the ad hominem attacks, focus on the issues, and see if we can come up with a few steps in the right direction. Regarding arming the teachers - the questions are - Do teachers want this? Will parents send their kids to schools with armed teachers? How many accidental shootings would result? And would potential school shooters really care? I don't think schools shooters as a group are people who do much of a "cost-benefit" analysis. Many of them expect to die anyway, so I'm not sure how much deterence would come from knowing that a teacher or two may be armed. There was an armed resource officer at Stoneman Douglas. That had no deterent effect at all. Lastly- it is galling to many teachers that they have to buy school supplies out of their own pockets, while millions would be spent nation wide on training teachers to handle weapons.

The author of this article,

The author of this article, while I do not know or wish to know, sounds REALLY GOOFY. To think that some mysterous group of people came in from outer space to educate and create a message for the Parkland students is beyond rational. I have no doubt he listens to Rushless Windbag and I am confident he watches Sean "Manatee." Good grief; they live among us.