Arm with knowledge

I understand that newspaper editorials are opinion pieces, and that editorials represent the political position of the newspaper. So I propose a difference of opinion with the “Bumper sticker arguments” editorial. The editorial takes issue with an “Arm Teachers with Knowledge Not Guns” sign of a protesting “local kid,” with the argument that teachers already have all the knowledge they need. I was a high school biology teacher with a master’s degree. I would not have been a knowledgeable teacher based only on what I had learned in college. Knowledge of the subject and teaching skills is a continuing process. There definitely is a need to acquire more knowledge in order to share the latest subject information. That is, to be current with the knowledge being taught. Then introducing the “sin of omission” concept begs a theological discussion on knowing and doing the right thing. And writing that “arming some teachers” versus “don’t arm teachers” is a big-difference argument is an NRA-sounding diversionary rhetorical tactic. Arming “some” teachers is arming teachers, whether that’s a good idea or not. My opinion as a onceupon-a-time teacher is that teachers are to teach, not to be armed classroom security personnel. As the editorial points out, teachers are already armed with ever-developing knowledge and are hired to pass that knowledge on. Arming a teacher with a gun would be an unneeded and dangerous distraction from the job of teaching. If “bumper sticker” arguments are easy to chant, then perhaps “arming teachers” editorials are easy to write. And if a student’s opinion can be called thin because it’s written on poster paper (not board?), then perhaps an editorial is also thin because it’s written on newspaper stock. I can definitely see through the editorial when I hold it up to the light. Yes, “let us reason together.” And maybe with knowledge. Or am I being too demanding? One more thing. I am not that Ed Rogers of the Washington Post. Bless his heart. ED ROGERS Little Rock