Yes, but if you could shoot your disliked colleagues…
Is is possible to allow teachers to have guns and not allow other people to have guns in the buildings?
My wife (a teacher) is concerned about angry parents bringing guns to schools. She’s had confrontations with parents before, and if parents know a teacher may have a gun what’s to stop them from bringing one to a conference? Next thing you know this will be a shootout.
Hardly a strawman. As absurd as I find the notion of a heroic band of armed citizens, ready to leap in when duty calls, it is an all too frequently voiced argument. The facile and specious formulation “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” (promoted by the head of the NRA, of course) constitutes one of the many versions of this myth.
No, I’m saying that the genuine risks far outweigh the (IMO) dubious possible benefits. Arming teachers could provide at best a false sense of security. I very much doubt that most teachers would have the presence of mind or the skill to defend anyone against a nut bent on murder. Moreover, allowing guns in the classroom opens the door for all sorts of nightmare scenarios in which children and teachers could be injured or killed due to accidents or misjudgments. God knows soldiers and police officers make mistakes all the time, resulting in the deaths of innocent people (e.g., 6-year-olds with autism). And these are professionals who receive extensive training in the handling of weapons and the stress of combat or police work. Teachers could hardly be expected to receive that sort of training.
Parents send their children off to school every day, trusting that the school authorities can keep their children safe. If the schools guarantee that there will be guns in the school in the name of increasing security, I would say they are compounding the problem of gun violence rather than solving it.
I must agree with this, while I am a pro gun ownership guy.
This. I am willing to agree that in the extremely unlikely event that a shooter shows up at my kid’s school, an armed teacher might be helpful. But what about the other days? What about when a kid steals the teacher’s gun? What about when a teacher goes off the deep end? What about when a teacher gets careless and his gun slips out of his pocket and gets wedged between two seats in the auditorium?
How often would those happen? How did that compare to the odds of a shooter in the school?
I’d prefer fewer guns in the school, thanks.
How do you differentiate this argument from one that would apply to people carrying in a public park, in a mall, or other crowded venues?
Certain states have decided that the benefit of having a populace able to be armed if they choose outweighs the potential costs involved in the scenario you outline. I can’t determine what makes a school grounds some special place where those evaluations don’t apply. And keep in mind, in over 50% of states, it’s already legal for a teacher to be armed either as a matter of course or if they receive permission from the principal or district in 18 states.
I could see more strict requirements for carrying in school - perhaps more rigorous training, level 3 retention holsters, live fire marksmanship tests, etc. But there should be an avenue for those who want to carry to do so.
I work for teachers who can’t make their printers work, they cannot be trusted with pistols.
In Arkansas, one must take a course and a test to obtain a concealed carry license. I do not know the details, or what the test is like.
Granted, but once the person meets those requirements, what makes the school different than any other populated place they may frequent? And I’m pretty sure that making a printer work is not one of the requirements for firearm ownership or carry.
IANAL but I think one could argue that the state has a heightened responsibility to protect children on school grounds because the state is requiring them to attend school and stands in loco parentis when they’re at school.
For the general public concealed-carrying in public places where concealed carry is legal, as you note, their rights are held to override the possible increased risks. Even if an excitable or untrustworthy person with a concealed firearm makes a public place more dangerous, that person still has the right to concealed-carry if they’re doing so legally.
But if there’s a good case to be made that having people carrying weapons on school grounds would on balance increase rather than reduce the overall risks (which, considering that schools are by definition full of immature and irresponsible people, sounds pretty accurate), then ISTM that the state’s duty to protect schoolchildren allows it to override concealed-carry rights in those circumstances.
Natch, this wouldn’t apply to children being homeschooled, any more than the state can forbid parents to possess firearms in their homes for any other reason. If parents really want their children’s schooling to be safeguarded by members of the public carrying firearms, they should avail themselves of homeschooling options.
No, but if they cannot master toner replacement, I doubt they will be safe with a firearm.
Also the teachers in Israel, or at least the ones where the Jewish students go, are, with rare exceptions, members of the IDF reserves.
I’m not sure how many teachers in the US are either military or ex-military.
Children have poor impulse control and risk assessment by dint of biology ; teachers are typically highly stressed individuals because many if not most of y’alls children are fucking insufferable (and their parents are even worse in 90% of cases). There’s a reason almost half of 'em quit within 5 years.
Furthermore a person in a public park, a mall or other crowded venue is not personally responsible for the safety of 30+ other people in the park nor liable should any one of them get any kind of owie up to and including bullshit “permanent mental scarring caused by the stress of being near a firearm” and the like.
They need more good guys with printers like you…
Who would be training the teachers because I can tell you every school I have been at the Active Shooter training provided by administrators has been wrong and leads to the execution style murders we saw at Sandy Hook.
Administrators perform active shooter training? Here it’s done by local law enforcement.
That sounds unusual.
How does it connect to Sandy Hook?
I would imagine the weapons training teachers — if they are those selected to wield firearms — receive will be provided in Teacher Training Colleges, perhaps by ex-army ( or current units seconded from the armed forces ), along with the rest of the skill-sets teachers need; and will require a complete pass for them to proceed into the profession. Like 95% hits on the head targets and no scatter whatsoever.
Rather like those old Officer Training Corps popular in the better sort of schools in the 20th century. Plus it will teach the teachers discipline and self-confidence as well as trigger-control.
It would be important to adapt those jolly pop-up training scenarios, where dummies jump up and one has to instantly decide if they are a terrorist or a woman with a pram, to the actual conditions of the schoolroom. Thus the 007 teacher can take out the bad guy, and not the children, nor someone who has just entered without knocking to deliver a package , with at least 95% non-error.
Assuming Active Shooter is in the building.
Flee/Hide/Fight
We are taught by schools to immediately go to hide rather than try to flee if we can. By sheltering-in-place in a room you are asking to be executed. Better to throw a chair through a window and get as many out and away as you can. Sandy Hook (or any other school shooting) relies on your door being locked to protect you.