LETTER: What would be enough security armament?
What would be enough security armament?
Immediately after the mass shootings of innocent worshipers in the synagogue in Squirrel Hill, President Trump uttered the misguided comment that the carnage could possibly have been minimized, or even prevented, if the temple would have had an armed guard at-the-ready, should an intruder have entered the building.
First of all, it would certainly be a violation of religious principles of peace, trust and goodwill, and probably quite repulsive to many worshipers, to have armed personnel present at religious services, regardless of denomination. But how much firepower would a security guard have to have to successfully thwart an intruder bent upon death to anyone falling within his sights? As we have repeatedly seen, mass killers arm themselves with military-style killing machines, designed to inflict as much death as possible by a single shooter. We can easily compare perceived security measures to an arms race, as seen by belligerent countries throughout the world. Would a side arm be sufficient to bring down an assailant with the luckiest of shots? Would it be necessary for the security person to be, likewise, armed with a military-style automatic weapon? We have seen mass shooters equip themselves with total body armor which would require heavy firepower to defeat. Should the security guard also be equipped with full body armor? How about massive clips of ammunition that would be required should a gun battle arise between the security person and two or more shooters? Would it be necessary for the security person to be poised in such a position that gives full view of an entrance, but provides an effective measure of protection to defeat gunfire?
Where would it all end, and what would be enough security at religious gatherings, movie theaters, shopping malls, grocery stores, schools and college campuses to affect the defeat of the horrendous intentions of a mass murderer? Shall we make our public life resemble an armed “banana republic-like,” third-world country?
As I see it, there are too many questions, and too few answers, which fail to defend our American values of peace, freedom, security and tranquility within the public sector. It is a pitiful state of affairs in which we now find ourselves. Sensible solutions are demanded. When will they ever be achieved?
Ronald J. Yamka
Canonsburg