What if?

A few days ago, my friend Jim Pastori asked me a very legitimate question on facebook in light of the ongoing debate over arming educators after Stoneman Douglas"

"Just to play devil's advocate (no pun intended), if it was your kid under siege, would you want an adult (teacher, administrator etc..) with a gun to help defend them? I am not a proponent of this plan - but I try to see all sides…."

The easy cop-out: I don't have any children! (But I do have three nephews, and I have 150-175 young adults under my care daily during the school year. I'm their proxy parent when they're in my classroom.)

The easy response: Of course! Anything to save my child!

The realistic response: So this is the world in which we now live, where calling for entrusting educators with both buying and taking bullets are part of the norm. While it sounds good at face value, there are so many problems with this “solution” that it’s hard to decide where to begin.

The logic is pretty simple, according to Oregon Secretary of State Dennis Richardson: "If I had been a teacher or the principal at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and if the school district did not preclude me from having access to a firearm, either by concealed carry or locked in my desk, most of the murdered children would still be alive, and the gunman would still be dead, and not by suicide." And after Sandy Hook, Florida State Sen. Dennis Baxley said, "In our zealousness to protect people from harm we've created all these gun-free zones, and what we've inadvertently done is we've made them a target. A helpless target is exactly what a deranged person is looking for where they cannot be stopped.”

The main problem with this entire debate is that every "arm teachers so they can get the 'bad guy' before he (because it's never a 'she') can fire upon your students" looks as this as a one-size-fits-all answer. I know the plan is that teachers should only shoot the individual(s) who are trying to kill them, but it’s difficult to imagine teachers would do a better job of it than, say, professional LEOs or military. You know, individuals with thousands of hours of professional training. And even with that, there's the risk of friendly fire, casualty of war, or collateral damage. (Speaking of which, should educators prioritize sharpshooter training over lesson planning or grading assignments? There are only so many hours in the day.)

Arm the teachers, save the kids. It's a myopic, narrow-minded view that looks at a single scenario. And it makes a lot of assumptions along the way, in particular that my carrying a revolver (while on the defensive) will somehow make me capable of handling someone with a much more powerful weapon (who is on the offensive). That four armed LEOs failed to even venture into the building where students at Stoneman Douglas High School - were they strategizing? Waiting for more backup? Scare shitless? - is a huge red flag.

Regardless of whether I am armed or not, here is my "priority list" for keeping students as safe as possible in ANY situation that might involve an active shooter:

1: Ensure the doors to my classroom are locked. (Note: Mine are ALWAYS locked.)

2: Ensure shades are drawn on exterior windows.

3: Lights off.

4: Get students into one of the two storage closets in my classroom (both have art supplies and other items, but the two combined can house around 40 students).

5. Cell phones on SILENT (I mean, the ringers should be off anyway, but just to be sure).

6. Maintain silence as long as possible.

Please note that nowhere in there are the phrases "Grasp my hand around a weapon on my hip" or "Try to remember the code to my classroom gun safe" or "Abandon the class to go hunt down a shooter" or anything of the sort.

The myopic part of this discussion is that it fails to take into consideration all those other school days where there isn't an active shooter scenario, and bad things can happen with guns in a classroom environment.

First, arming a militia of teachers may only serve to give students and faculty a false sense of protection. Furthermore, it may actually be counterproductive toward instilling an atmosphere of learning, respect and safety, all of which are vital for education. I mean, on the hypothetical bright side, it may increase good behavior among students, though this good behavior would be more out of fear than respect for the rules. But rather than feeling safe and protected, the idea of armed teachers and staff has the potential to be, at the least, strongly disconcerting to the average student, and at worst downright terrifying.

There's the possibility of teachers "going postal." Don't laugh, it can happen. Or teachers who believe (justifiably or not) they are in an unsafe classroom environment.

There's the "students can overpower teachers and steal their weapons" issue.

There's the liability issues - if I (accidentally) shoot a student or two, whether during an active shooter or not, who gets sued? The school? The district? Me?

There's the the finances of this idea. I find this point particularly offensive - that having failed to adequately fund teacher salaries, pensions, and supplies the past decade-plus, suddenly our federal and state governments have an abundance of cash to create small militia in schools. Our government is telling us it can find the funds for guns, ammo, and training? And will body armor be included, or is that out-of-pocket? And if out-of-pocket, are all of these expenses deductible on my tax forms? (Hint: like everything else in government, it would become unfunded mandates, which means either higher taxes or less money for the supplies already underfunded ... or both.)

I really don't want to receive a Kevlar vest for my birthday (or ever), but given the choice, I'd take that over a gun.

According to a May 2012 poll conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for the group "Mayors Against Illegal Guns," gun-owning Americans, including National Rifle Association members, overwhelmingly support a raft of common-sense measures typically described as “gun control.” These include:

- Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees;

- Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns;

- Mandating gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen;

- Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older; and

- Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. (The NRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.)

The burden of societal ills is often placed on the shoulders of teachers today. It’s not fair, or reasonable. But we teachers have sadly become accustomed to it. We get it. We are proxy parents. In some cases, we're the parents students wish they had. And the vast majority of us do NOT believe moonlighting as soldiers or first responders solves more problems than it creates. Instead, search #armmewith to see what we really need to help all of our kids.

Still No Answers

The last time "we the people" opined regarding much-needed improvements in both enforcing existing gun laws and strengthening the laws currently in place, it was after the June 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando.

Well, here we are again, after this week’s mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in nearby Parkland, where 17 individuals were murdered. The alleged shooter, a former student, was armed with smoke grenades and multiple weapons, including an AR-15.

Twenty months later, and there are still no answers. Correction; there are answers - what hasn’t been seen are solutions implemented to at least try and stem the epidemic of mass shootings in the United States.

According to a May 2012 poll conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, gun-owning Americans, including National Rifle Association members, overwhelmingly support a raft of common-sense measures typically described as “gun control.” These include:

• Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees;

• Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns;

• Mandating gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen;

• Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older; and

• Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence.

In addition, following the Sandy Hook shootings in December 2012, Newsweek/The Daily Beast special correspondent Michael Tomasky argued the right to bear arms can and should be regulated by the states - not by the federal government via the 2nd Amendment.

"Congress should tell states, in the wake of this surely worse epidemic of gun violence, that they must put some substance into the phrase 'well-regulated militia'," Tomasky said. "They must define 'well-regulated militia' to include not only the National Guard, but all legally registered gun-owners in the state. If they fail to do so, and in line with the precedent set by the drinking-age act, they risk losing 10 percent of their federal law-enforcement funding.”

There is some precedence to this. In the early 1980s, America was up in arms about drunk driving. After much debate and hand wringing about what to do, the focus was narrowed down to younger motorists, who tended to be the more irresponsible drivers. So Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which told states where the legal drinking age varied: you must raise the drinking age in your state to 21 by a specific date. And if the states refused, the federal government would deny them 10 percent of their highway money.

"Threatening financial penalties should make states get in line pretty fast," Tomasky said. "They’ll all comply, as they did in the 1980s. What governor is going to want to be responsible for losing 10 percent of his law-enforcement money? Of course they will comply to varying degrees. Alabama will make very few requirements of these new militia members, while northern states - surely Connecticut itself, among others - will issue more stringent requirements. And over time, we’ll see results."

It's an interesting concept.

Can there be change? Will there be change? More specifically, will there be meaningful change - the type that both appeases the gun rights advocates and those who want to prevent the seemingly random acts of violence that result in anywhere from one murder to a massacre? I think the answers are: (1) definitely; (2) yes; and (3) maybe. The key part is developing and accepting a philosophical adjustment that our national culture can both buy into and implement. Gun control is one of those "hot button" topics that eludes a ton of emotion, emotion that can (and often does) override logic.

Recent events, culminating (well, hopefully culminating) with the Marjory Stoneman Douglas mass killing, have called for an adjustment in the United States' citizenry's social contract. Time to see what the actual result of this ideological shift leads to ... for our individual and collective future.

An Affair Of The Heart

There are literally thousands of popular songs about the heart, ranging from rock to country to swing. Many deal with some aspect of romance. Not as popular are songs about healthy hearts, which is weird, since a healthy heart is just as important to healthy relationships.

Odds are, you know someone affected by heart disease and stroke, because around 2,200 Americans die of cardiovascular disease each day. That’s an average of one death every 40 seconds.

I bring this statistic to light because February is “American Heart Month,” which began in 1963 thanks to President Lyndon Johnson. At that time, cardiovascular disease was rampant, the cause of more than half the deaths in the U.S. Unfortunately, despite both Johnson’s declaration and major increases in awareness campaigns and cooking options, cardiovascular disease continues to be the leading cause of death for both men and women, across all demographics. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, heart disease affects more than 85 million Americans, and includes heart attack, arrhythmia, heart valve problems and the after-effects of stroke.

Heart disease - the No. 1 killer of men and women in the United States - is not something that happens overnight. It takes decades to develop, which gives us the opportunity to turn things around if we are headed in the wrong direction. This means it is important to keep it front and center in our lives. Thats why making American Heart Month a priority is important. This includes making “National Wear Red Day” - which is today, Friday, Feb. 2 - as notable as possible. Individuals are encouraged to wear red in order to raise awareness about cardiovascular disease, which in turn is geared toward saving lives.

Living healthy is important. The biggest part of living healthy comes down to simply making healthy choices. (Note to millennials: eating Tide Pods does not constitute a healthy anything in life.) While you can’t change things like age and family history (regardless of how much money you have), the good news is even modest changes to your diet and lifestyle can improve your heart health and lower your risk by as much as 80 percent.

Here’s three ways to live that healthier lifestyle:

(1) When it comes to food, enlist some support. Let family members know you are trying to make healthy choices. If you see a loved one eating poorly, try a gentle, loving nudge. Maybe offer to do the grocery shopping, or do it as a team to encourage one another. Are there teens in the family who might be going off to college and who might have a mini-fridge to stock? Taking them food shopping could be an eye-opening experience.

(2) See your doctor. For some, this can be the hardest step of all. Men, especially, are known to avoid a trip to the doctor. But what you don’t know could possibly kill you.

(3) Exercise can be really difficult to fit into our schedules. But it’s worth it. Exercise not only positively affects heart health, it also boosts mood and keeps your body stronger as you get older. According to the CDC, adults should aim for getting 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity - like a brisk walk - each week, or about 30 minutes a day, five days a week. Try a family fitness challenge and compete with each other to see who can get the best results. And if you can put together a good workout playlist, both you and your heart will be happy.