Letter: Different safety approach
When the shooting started at Sandy Hook, the police were called. When they arrived and heard gunshots and saw bodies, they called for backup, which arrived in 9 minutes. By then the slaughter was over.
CMC’s “active shooter” drill last week read like great theater in the PI, but CMC already has a great theater program.
The essential question of who would shoot the shooter and how quickly was not addressed in the article and, like Sandy Hook, one can imagine a visceral disinclination on the part of law enforcement to charge in without knowing where and how many shooters they are confronting. This would take time and that would allow a shooter free and deadly rein.
Spring Valley does enjoy the presence of a law-enforcement program attended by courageous men and women, some or all of them vetted, hired, trained and entrusted with protecting the public in their respective jurisdictions.
These men and women could very well be the lethal “already inside” counterforce to a deadly assailant as well as a visible deterrent. But they appear to leave their service weapons locked in their cars while on campus, leaving them declawed and defanged like most everyone else. Why?
Is this their choice or CMC’s request?
Furthermore, why is there not a small group of volunteers from the faculty and staff who are well trained by law enforcement, discreetly armed, known only to themselves, the administration and law enforcement who can eliminate the lethal threat as soon as possible?
If we have tax money to print posters warning of the perils of “microaggression” should we not also post signs that warn that serious threat to the students’ safety will be met with swift and serious response?
Anything less does not “make sure our students and staff are safe.”
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.