There’s clearly an ideological conflict between those who want to afford people the ability to defend themselves in public by banning gun-free zones and those who, regardless of the number of killings that occur in gun-free zones, want to keep people disarmed to prove their political point.
Thomas is a devoted father, lawful gun owner, and well-respected member of his community. Every morning, as he drives his daughter to school, his anxiety level reaches its pinnacle. The school is a gun-free zone, and he knows that if danger were to strike, there would be no one inside able to protect his daughter. The thought weighs on him heavily, a constant shadow over the simple act of dropping her off at school.
Every day, he tries to push the fear aside, as he walks her to the door unarmed. But the anxiety never fully leaves him. Thomas believes in responsibility, in lawfulness, and in the value of life. He also believes the current gun free school zones policies unnecessarily put his daughter at risk.
Determined to do whatever he can to change the dangerous policy, at least at his daughter’s school, he attends school board meetings, he speaks with the principal, and he reaches out to the local police department. Calmly but firmly, he explains his concerns, sharing the stories of other school killings and how a lack of armed teachers, staff, and security puts everyone inside at risk. He comes prepared with the statistics that fuel his uneasy feelings, and he tries to explain to anyone who will listen that a “no guns allowed” sign on the front of the school doesn’t stop killers, it welcomes them. He pleads for a new policy that would allow trained adults to defend children if the unthinkable happens. Though he faces resistance, Thomas refuses to be silent. His love for his daughter drives him, and every word he speaks is meant to protect not just her, but all the children in the school.
Diane sits at the head of the school board meetings with a presence that demands attention. She’s not only disliked by most people but feared by some. A staunch anti-gun advocate, she spends her weekends protesting, marching, and speaking loudly against gun rights, and she brings the same intensity to the school board meetings. She is a forceful, unyielding voice, pressing her fellow members to adopt her view that guns have no place on school campuses, or anywhere in society for that matter.
When Thomas speaks, expressing his fear for his daughter in a gun-free school and showing data that school shootings have risen since the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, Diane listens, but only superficially. She dismisses the statistics, arguing that guns themselves are the problem. Her rhetoric is always rude, condescending and intended to stir emotion, often leaving other board members hesitant to even challenge her.
Even as parents voice their concerns and plead for practical protections like armed security or the allowance of licensed, concealed carry teachers to have guns in their possession during school hours, Diane remains strong in her position. She believes that any concession would betray her ideals and put her out of favor with her political allies. She has convinced herself that armed staff are a dangerous solution, and any discussion of defensive measures is an affront to the principles she champions. For Diane, the debate isn’t about compromise, it’s about absolute adherence to her anti-gun convictions, even when she’s confronted with evidence proving that children are safer when schools adopt armed security policies.
One day, the unthinkable happened. An armed and deranged student stormed the school, intent on causing mass harm. The children, teachers, and staff were defenseless, trapped by the gun-free zone policy that they were told would “keep them safe.” Chaos erupted, and police arrived on the scene, but despite the efforts of first responders, innocent lives were lost. The town was thrown into grief and outrage. The entire country began talking about the preventable attack.
David’s daughter lost her life in the attack, and soon after, David went to the press, speaking passionately about the tragedy and warning that policies banning armed, trained adults from schools had left children exposed to danger. His voice resonated with sorrow, anger and an urgency to prevent another disaster like this from happening.
In the aftermath, the school board convened under intense public pressure. The majority of the board was able to see how the gun free school zones policy may have played a role in the tragedy and they condemned Diane for her uncompromising anti-gun stance, recognizing that her ideology may have contributed to the lack of protective measures. Yet Diane remained defiant. Even as the evidence of tragedy stared her in the face, she insisted that the problem was not unarmed schools, but guns themselves. She refused to reconsider her position, claiming that any attempt to allow responsible, armed protection on campus was dangerous and misguided. She went to the press and used the school killing to elevate herself and push for universal background checks, magazine capacity restrictions and red flag laws, never once reflecting on the fact that she had prevented those who lost their lives from having armed protection. Diane never acknowledged that if she had not been on that school board, the attack may not have happened in the first place.
The town mourned its losses, and the debate over safety versus ideology raged louder than ever. The policy that was intended to protect children had failed, and the question of how to prevent another massacre became unavoidable.
The Second Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.
