« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Arming a School Teacher or Administrator or Two (Thousand) Is a Good Idea

I’d just like to say something quickly here tonight about the controversy about the proposals for some school teachers and administrators to be allowed to arm themselves and carry a weapon, and have one (or more) immediately available in an emergency situation:

It’s a good idea, and it’s an idea we should have advanced a long time ago.  In addition to other ideas we’re all considering, having a few teachers at each school who volunteer and are willing to be armed is not something we should reject out of hand – in fact we should be supporting them.

It’s a good idea not because anyone wants to think of a school as a “less-safe” place to be.  It’s a good idea because the reality is that a lot of schools really **are** a “less-safe” place to be.  Moreover the idea that at least someone shouldn’t be armed at a school just because…”it’s a school!” is not a defensible reason.  It’s just dogma.  Having some people who are competent at handling firearms won’t make schools “less safe” – it will make them more safe.

The people who are elementary school teachers and administrators are not incompetents and I know they care deeply about the children whose care they are responsible for every day.  They’re also adults who are capable of defending themselves and – if the need arises – to defend those children and themselves.

This isn’t about turning schools into armed camps.  It’s actually something that could be done discreetly and with a lot of careful thought.  I think it would do a lot of good to have a few faculty members at a school who took the time to train, who had the interest, and who undertook the responsibility to be armed.  It’s a big responsibility but it’s not an objectionable responsibility – it would be a very positive thing.  I’d much rather send my children to a school where I know that at least some of the teachers and/or administrators had access to a firearm than not.  I’m sure there are a lot of people who are Principals and administrators who could satisfy the requirements and would be interested and extremely capable if they undertook that role and were allowed to do it.

I support that initiative.  It makes a great deal of sense.

America has the best gun training available in the world for people who are willing to seriously undertake the responsibility and take the courses.  That isn’t a boast – it’s a fact.  It doesn’t turn people into “Commandos.”  It trains people to be really capable of using their weapons responsibly, and anyone of average intelligence and commitment can do it.  So what if we decided to fund a few thousand teachers going to concealed carry and weapon courses.  Would that be horrible?  Would it change our view of ourselves, or them?  I think it would actually help things a lot.

It’s not going to solve all the problems, any more than any other single answer does, but the reflexive idea coming from people like Mike Bloomberg that “it’s crazy” is just not helpful.  I’m sure everyone in every town in America can think of at least one person in their school district who would be capable of stepping up and performing that extra duty, without much trouble or controversy.

People react against this idea largely because of their preconceived notions and prejudices.  There’s some kind of barrier that prevents them from realizing:  “We’re creating soft targets here, and nobody can defend themselves, but because they’re supposed to be sacrosanct, we can’t think about this.”

Well, we should think about it, and we should do more than that.  Every school – elementary, middle, high school and others in America – should have a couple of people on the faculty who know how to use a firearm and have access to one.  I personally don’t think public school teachers are categorically less competent or capable of handling their weapons than anyone else.  Quite apart from the idea that they have to become “commandos” or “police officers” – which is utterly, absolutely false – many of them already own guns in their private lives.  They probably don’t talk much about it, but they do.

We should be facilitating their efforts to make schools not precisely “gun free” but “random mass shooting free” – and arming a teacher or two – and training them, and compensating them for it – is a worthwhile thing to do.

It’s not an extreme proposal, although I know all “modest proposals” run into objections from people who want to call them extreme.  Mostly for cultural reasons, not factual reasons.  We all have our shibboleths.  I know that there are people who teach at almost every school in America who would and could  handle the responsibility with competence, and just by doing so they would reduce the attractiveness of their schools and the children under their care as targets of opporunity.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • kowalski

    I’m sure there are going to be a lot of objections, but I mean this post sincerely and I’d appreciate it if people could keep the discussion civil, because that’s what it’s intended to be: a subject for civil discussion. I think it’s a subject that’s long overdue.

  • Viet71

    kowalski,

    You are right. Arms in well-trained and responsible hands are a responsible step in hardening the targets deranged shooters seek.

    • kowalski

      It’s not some kind of radicalization or militarization of schools. It’s a fact that almost every school in this country already has someone (probably more than one person) on their faculty who is a gun owner. Many of them have several. What we should be doing is encouraging them to use what they know, to take additional training if they want, to be more prepared if they need to be, and to help them enact it.

      I don’t think anything is a single-answer solution to the problems we face but I know there are a lot of school districts around the country who should (and will) consider it.

      • Viet71

        What this country needs is a well-armed and well-trained citizen able and willing to stand up in every weak spot to every predator.

        Adam Lanza blasted his way into an elementary school carrying a Bushmaster, a Glock, and a Sig Sauer. He wore armor. He was on a one-way trip.

        How do you check a guy like this? Not through candle vigils. Or through gun bans.

        You check him through teacher and admin training coupled with armoring.

        If America can’t stomach this, wait another ten or so years.

        • kowalski

          That’s right. He was very much on a “one-way trip” and he planned it that way, for reasons that he knew very well. It wasn’t a “random thing” to him: he planned it out and he knew exactly what he was doing, and why he was doing it – at least to himself, he understood what he was doing.

  • arthurjake

    The problem like always is your making a rational argument in a debate with people who can only make emotional statements. We have to find a way to do both.

    • kowalski

      I appreciate that a lot. Usually I’m thought of as one of the more “emotional” people around this place, but when I really think about my life experience, I know that there are people in each and every town in America who would be judged by their peers as capable of handing this kind of thing and would actually want to do it, and they could be trained to do it very well, and without that much expenditure.

      We spend a lot of money on schools in this country and we have a lot of people who work for school districts who are already licensed and who own firearms in their private lives. I certainly would have trusted several of my high school teachers to be armed.

      • arthurjake

        Well if you grew up at the time of my father your teachers might have had weapons on school property as well as your fellow students during hunting season. A rifle or shotgun in someone’s vehicle was the norm then. Clearly access to weapons was never the problem.

        People do not think about the past though. They do not think about the numbers. Something bad happens and they want a quick fix. Something bad happens they get emotional do not look at the logic in an argument and want lawmakers to give them a quick fix. Now the quick fix is gun control. We need to plead our case on a more emotional level. We often times come off as non feeling when we make the smart argument that gun free zones are where the worse mass murder shootings take place.

        It is a tuff sell though. Most people think of firearms anywhere near a child as taboo. I don’t get it myself. Usually homes where firearms accidents occur with children are the homes where the firearm was hidden. Take them out of hiding and they are not a dangerous toy for children to play with. I grew up in a house with many firearms and never felt the need to sneak them. Why would I when my Dad was more than happy to take them out let me handle them and sunlight permitting go out and shoot? Plus besides knowing the fun involved with them I was taught the dangers of being unsafe.

        We need a three pronged approach to the argument. One of the logical argument of numbers. Law abiding citizens with firearms prevent crime and save lives. The second the emotional one of it is for the safety of our children. The third to ease people’s woes education and training not only for the faculty that would be carrying them but firearms safety for the youngsters to ease concerns of guns around children.

        • kowalski

          I don’t know if I really agree with that second part. I can be very emotional about the right to bear arms and the 2nd Amendment, but I don’t know whether it helps much in the aftermath of something like what happened in Newtown. There’s a time for emotion and you have to be very careful about using it.

          I don’t think you succeed in arguing against emotionalism with even more counterreactionary emotionalism. The problem is that random mass shootings are up by something like 300-400% since the 1980s, and they’re about the most deeply emotional events people can witness aside from an event like 9/11 or an airline hijacking, or someone strapping explosives to themselves.

          I don’t think adding fuel to the fire with emotional appeals about children’s safety work when they’re coming from gun owners, in the aftermath of a shooting like this. More loosey-goosey emotion from our side isn’t going to help make the arguments in a court of law, in the House and Senate, and – yes – in the long term eyes of public opinion, or in the sober administrative decisions that should be made or the explanation of those decisions to the public.

          The people who are adamantly opposed to guns already have more than enough emotionalism to just turn off completely. Their emotions are about as keyed up as they get. All you’re going to get into is a shouting match that degenerates into a further hardening of opinion. It’s going to make things worse.

          I know because I’ve tried it, and I don’t think it helps. You can’t wave your arms and scream your way into convincing someone that teachers in schools should be carrying guns. I happen to think that guys like Ted Nugent – as wonderful as they might be as people and as dedicated as they are – do more harm than good with their “in your face” showmanship and so forth, parading around on stage with weapons and making themselves look like some kind of incarnation of a Noble Savage. All someone like Mike Bloomberg has to do to counter that is stand up and say something like:

          “Look who their spokespeople are: a bunch of gun-waving, desparate screamers who can’t think straight and wave their guns around – and they propose to help us. Meanwhile innocent children are dying by the score because of the organization that represents them and buys votes in Congress with the help of irrational, washed-up rock stars like Nugent. Every time I have to answer to someone’s relatives – of a policeman, of a fireman, of someone who teaches children, I know that the NRA and their people are wrong, that they’re contributing to the problem, and that they need to be stopped.” As much as I disagree with Mike Bloomberg I know personally that he’s a very smart guy and he’s capable of making arguments that sound even better than that.

          I don’t think it’ll help. This is one of those instances where the rules of “how to win friends and influence people” requires not (just) emotion, but tact and sincerity and – that old word – authenticity.

          I agree with emotion – but if you can’t channel it and focus it into a argument that persuades people based on rational thinking, nobody is going to risk their children listening to you. It isn’t going to fly in well-heeled upper middle class towns in Connecticut populated by highly educated people, and it isn’t going to fly in court, or in Congress. The problem is that we have too much shouting.

          Otherwise I think what you said is excellent.

          • arthurjake

            I dont mean a shouting match(I think Ted Nugent is a tool to say the least). When I say the emotional argument I mean that we want the same thing for are children to be safe. I just think we have a tendency to come off as too robotic and without heart or feeling whenever we make an argument. Not just on this but on everything else also. We give numbers but rarely do we put a face to those numbers. We need to start putting more faces to the gun saved the my life argument. Let the father who defended his family buy shooting an intruder make the case. Then have the smart numbers guy behind him throwing out the statistics.

  • Kyle-MI

    I doubt many people would have a problem with armed guards at schools. There probably are already schools with armed guards, especially in the inner cities. For schools that cannot afford an armed guard, why not a well trained administrator or faculty member? Of course, there would be screenings and mental health checks on the people who volunteer. They would certainly be closer than the 20 minute wait time for the police.

  • Melody Warbington

    A friend of mine who wrote this…

    http://itsonlywords55.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/shouldnt-the-white-house-be-a-gun-free-zone/

    pointed out that either the White House and Sasha and Malia’s school should be Gun Free Zones or we should consider arming teachers because, after all, our children are no less important than the First Family’s.