I would think it’s more insulting to teachers saying they can’t add toner to a printer than it is scary to think that they may have need to use a firearm in self defense.
Sometimes I have to turn the printer on for them. I don’t think the one who tried to connect to a wireless printer to get on the network understood why she couldn’t.
In very specifically constructed scenarios where the armed teacher somehow knows the killer’s intention in advance and is able to get the drop on them before they commit their massacre, sure, the armed teacher would have some ability to protect students.
Pragmatically speaking, though, having some voluntarily armed teachers on site is not very likely to do much good in a random school shooting situation. Just having some armed people on a campus doesn’t automatically provide an effective defense against the surprise attack of a deliberate killer. (Note, for example, that there were armed students concealed-carrying on campus at the time of the recent Oregon community college shooting, but they didn’t happen to be in a position to take on the shooter.)
You could of course just work on reducing the sprees but where’s the gun in that.
If we could figure that out, everyone would be happy.
The fact that there were people carrying concealed at Umpqua Community College during the mass shooting shows that Trump is just plain wrong that it would help, unless he is talking about trying to use open carry as a preventative measure.
There was an Air Force veteran carrying, but he wasn’t near the shooting activity and decided it wasn’t safe to act. I think in most cases it wouldn’t be safe to act given the chances of being mistaken for an attacker or accidentally shooting a bystander/hostage.
I suspect that there were a number of others carrying concealed given that was allowed by state law and it is reportedly common in the area.
It’s just not as black and white as people like Trump want to make. Guns don’t magically stop other people with guns, particularly when you have to worry about bystanders, law enforcement, and other unknowns.
A Red Lobster restaurant here was robbed by half a dozen armed people several months ago. There were several people carrying, and they all decided that it wasn’t a good idea to begin shooting.
Hey, the Columbine shooters ran into armed police in just minutes and it didn’t stop them. Therefore I move we have National Guardsmen at our schools; we all have fond memories of that. :rolleyes:
You don’t know how someone is going to act in a real emergency. That’s why police, EMTs, firefighters, military, etc train all the time. That’s the issue I have with expecting someone to have a gun and be a hero in an emergency.
You have no clue if they’re going to freeze up, piss their pants, be shaking all over and miss the attacker by 50 feet hitting a child, run in fear, or hit the person between the eyes and be a hero.
Sure, we could give each teacher a gun and 50 hours training divided between classroom and real life scenarios. But that would be taxpayer-funded, and who would be teaching while those teachers are out of the classroom?
Are there any better ways we could spend money in reguards to our schools?
No, no, no, no, no, no. It is a terrible idea. I can’t think of a worse way to deal with the serious problem of school shootings.
I teach in a university. I’m very happy that guns are banned on campus. Will a ban stop some nut with a twisted desire to wreak havoc and go out in a blaze of gunfire, taking as many victims as he can with him? No, of course not. But I certainly don’t think that teachers with guns could stop such a person either.
Gun control is the only way to limit gun violence. It’s appalling that the gun lobby in the US has succeeded in making that next to impossible at the moment.
Remarkable insight Professor. You should take wisdom to any of the stalled gun control threads around here to breathe some life into them. It sounds like you have it all figured out.
So long as it is voluntary, I’m 100% in support of allowing teachers who already have the skills to choose to carry guns to work. I also think any security personnel should be armed.
This isn’t going to fix the problem though. But it may prevent a shooting of a 5 or 6 students from turning into a shooting of 25 or 30.
No one should be forced to defend themselves or others, but no one should be actively prevented from doing so, either.
I read a brilliant piece after the Newtown shootings. The writer deftly dissected the myth that anybody with a gun is immediately transformed into a hero/Rambo type when confronted with an “active shooter.” Even highly trained individuals make terrible mistakes in the face of danger; your average Joe Schmo would be even more likely to freeze in panic or injure an innocent bystander. The writer of the piece also mentioned that the mother of the shooter in Newtown had an impressive number of firearms at her disposal, and she couldn’t even defend herself against her own son.
An armed classroom is a polite classroom.
Exactly. Give everyone a gun when they enter the classroom.
Arming teachers has worked in Israel.
I don’t think anyone is saying that being armed is some talisman that would help in all cases. You seem to be saying that it would never help when that’s plainly not true. The fact that someone being armed decided it was better to not act is not a knock against people being armed in school. It does counter the idea that people will try to be heroes and act irrationally all the time.
The thing is, teachers being allowed to be armed is allowed in many states like Oregon and Utahalready, and more are moving in that direction. Here is Missouri. Here is Colorado. Here is Texas. Here is Oklahoma.
I’m not sure if allowing teachers to be armed would on balance increase or decrease school violence. I think in the case of Luke Woodham, an Assistant Principal having access to his firearm likely saved lives:
The Assistant Principal didn’t let any toner changing difficulty get in his way, didn’t freeze up and piss his pants, or accidentally injure other students, etc.
Being armed at school doesn’t automatically provide an effective defense against the surprise attack of a deliberate killer - no one makes that argument. It does give people the choice whether they want to undertake the responsibility of being armed, and give them a means to defend themselves and others in limited scenario.
Israelis obviously believe that individuals are important for security.
Run hide fight.
That’s what every active shooter training scenario I have ever seen tells us to do.
The fight part is basically bum-rushing a guy with a gun.
I don’t think teachers should be force to carry guns (I’m split on whether they should be allowed to) but is it really so crazy to arm SOME of the security guards?
Just carry some Pork and Beans in your book sack. http://whnt.com/2015/01/12/alice-program-arms-children-with-cans-books-to-fight-off-classroom-intruders/
Make sure you finish the job though. No sense getting sued by a surviving school mass shooter.
Perhaps he did save lives, somehow. On the other hand, the shooter there had stopped on his own, left the building and was apprehended while leaving the parking lot. 14 years ago.