'Run, Hide, Fight' is the government equivalent of 'The Most Dangerous Game'

‘The Most Dangerous Game,’ a short story by Richard Connell, tells the harrowing tale of a hunter named Rainsford who finds himself in danger after falling off a ship and swimming to what appears to be an abandoned island. He comes across another hunter named Zaroff on the island who, after some dialogue, decides to hunt Rainsford. Rainsford is given a knife and a head start while Zaroff gets to use a gun.

Obviously, Zaroff’s game is cruel and unfair. Sure, he gives Rainsford a knife, but a knife is hardly the ideal weapon of self-defense when compared to a gun, and because of this unfair advantage, Zaroff has been able to take many lives prior to Rainsford, who only bested Zaroff in the end as he was a more skilled hunter. And while we can recognize this as cruel and unfair, this is a situation that any child can be put into when placed in a school that doesn’t allow guns on the property.

Instead, a common method adopted is ‘Run, Hide, Fight’. This is where children run (as if they are Rainsford getting a head start). They hide, as Rainsford did in the story. And when all else fails, they are instructed to arm themselves with whatever they can (but not a gun) in order to face a gunman.

There have been many arguments on the issue of guns in school with the increase in school shootings. Not surprisingly, prior to this increase in school shootings, there was a time in the U.S. where guns were commonplace in schools as students were able to learn how to shoot. Nevertheless, gun control activists argue that we need a government monopoly on guns to keep people who would use guns only as a means of self-defense from being able to defend themselves and their loved ones, because let’s be real, criminals who are willing to kill people, aren’t going to abide by anti-self-defense laws, just like they don’t abide by signs that say “No guns allowed.”

Second Amendment advocates have proposed different solutions to the rise in school shootings without taking away Second Amendment rights from the American people. This includes more security guards and metal detectors, which is genuinely one of the worst solutions they have come up with. This would increase taxes dramatically, and would be unsustainable and burdensome for taxpayers, especially in poorer areas. Furthermore, parents are sending their children to school, not prison. The idea that we’re going to treat children like prisoners by forcing them to empty their pockets and walk through metal detectors to see what they have on them everyday is the most government-thing I have ever heard, and should creep out anyone with common sense. Why would we want to normalize such an experience as that for our kids who should have a right to privacy, just like anyone else.

Another idea Second Amendment advocates are for is arming the teachers, which I think is a far superior idea. However, some teachers have cried out against this suggestion, stating they don’t feel comfortable wielding a firearm, and don’t feel they should have to be the ones to confront a gunman during an active shooting, and I completely agree with this. If a teacher is uncomfortable wielding a firearm, students will not be safe around that “good guy with a gun” as someone who doesn’t know proper firearm etiquette could create a serious and even fatal mistake. Furthermore, people who would make fantastic teachers who are uncomfortable around firearms would be less likely to take teaching jobs if the position calls for them to use a firearm in cases of emergencies. This would be unfair for both the teachers and the students who would benefit from these amazing teachers.

Nevertheless, armed teachers is a good idea, but it requires some nuance. No teacher should be forced to carry a firearm. However, if a teacher is willing to take some formal firearm training, there is no reason for them to not be allowed to bring a firearm to school on the off-chance that there is a school shooting. Afterall, they are trusted to be alone with children all day long, so why would we not trust them to use a gun responsibly with the proper training?

There could always be regulations set in place that schools could decide on including how much training a teacher must go through before they are allowed to bring their firearm to school. Whether they’re allowed to conceal carry or keep it in a lockbox in their desk or private office. And when they are allowed to bring it out or even mention it to students, as discretion would be the best policy since, if a shooter is a student, they would likely target teachers they know to be armed first.

This just seems to be the best idea in preventing school shootings from devastating communities and would even the fight in what is otherwise the most dangerous game.