In a diary I posted a couple of weeks ago, I was called daft for suggesting that every individual in a society has the power and right to maintain peace in his or her community and that the failure to do so is directly related to the violence we see in schools. I was also accused of appealing to anarchy for suggesting the previously mentioned. Here is the second installment of my rebuttal.
Please be sure to read part 1.
Another commenter said the following:
“Not to mention that having a cop or two on campus may dissuade a potential attacker from entering the grounds in the first place. Some schools are in very safe neighborhoods and police presence is unwarranted, and some schools have enough risk of a problem that we want our kids protected by a professional. One size does not fit all.”
The point this commenter made overlooks the fact that unsafe neighborhoods are a result of two failures. The first and most important is the community’s failure to maintain peace and order in their neighborhood under the law. The issue of unsafe neighborhoods wouldn’t exist if the failure didn’t exist. The second failure is the police department’s failure to serve the community to the capacity in which the community needs and desires. Consequently some neighborhoods are unsafe. So how can we expect a school to be safe if it’s housed in an unsafe community that we and the police have failed to protect?
And to the point of having children protected by professionals: EVERY individual should be a professional at protecting his or herself. Excuse me if that sounds too radical, but I cannot accept that I will be safe because someone else is supposed to be protecting me. Lastly, if you hire someone to protect you, does that mean you should stop protecting yourself?
-Bryant