Self-Evident

Air Marshals, Armed Teachers, and Gun-Free Zones: Are You Consistent?

(Published on 12/19/12)

——————–

If you are instinctively uncomfortable with the thought of concealed-carry teachers — personally, I have difficulties imagining Ms. Fitzpatrick from my kindergarten reading Good Night Moon, packing under her green cardigan — I would first suggest you attempt to reconcile your objection to trained, armed teachers with your (statistically likely) support for air marshals.

Following 9/11, most Americans demanded an armed undercover marshal on every flight. Little resistance presented to the idea, and expeditiously it became law. The new job of air marshal itself drew tremendous interest, likely aided by the pride of profession applicants expected. Administratively, the program has not run smoothly: concerns have centered around cost effectiveness, the actual percentage of flights which have a marshal on board, and employee mistreatment and discrimination, among others.

Yet objections to the armed security presence have remained minimal. Airplanes in flight are likely never again to be “gun-free zones”; they will instead approach “gun-mandatory zones,” and you likely are pleased with this.

Schools fall under federal “gun-free zone” law. Far more Americans support gun-free schools than support gun-free flights; a segment of the U.S. population thus exists which supports undercover air marshals yet rejects undercover “school marshals.”

Leave aside the emotion: does logical reasoning present grounds for this divergence in opinion? …

(Click here for original post and remainder of article)