Skip to main content

I read that an Oklahoma Legislator says that Teachers and Administrators should be armed.

Lets game this out, if you will bear with me. They want teachers and principles to wear loaded firearms in schools with the intent and belief that when the time comes, these armed educators will be able to stop an armed assault on a school.

Here are my problems with that:

1. You have a teacher in a classroom, packed with kids, in a school packed with kids. And you expect them to be skilled enough to, during an extremely stressful and threatening situation, shoot [and only hit] an armed shooter. This of course will magically happen without accidentally shooting someone else in the school or the room.

2. This armed educator will never be the victim of an assault to take their firearms in the school with the intent of committing other criminal acts or violent criminal acts, because this armed educator will also be a super-ninja who can use their awesome Kung Fu Jujitsu on any would be attacking gun thieves.

3. Of course our educators hardly have to work at all, to educate children, so they have nothing but time on their hands, to attend paramilitary type training that will make them into the public school version of Seal Team 6.

4. And because they have nothing but money oozing out of every orifice, because we pay them so much, they will also have the cash on hand to pay for that extra-deadly training AND purchase all the ammunition, guns, holsters, kevlar and night vision goggles needed to become the Laura Croft, or Indiana Jones of School District number [place your designation here].

Anyone else thoroughly disgusted with the level of stoopid here? If it gets any deeper, I will sink because I have hip-waders on.

5. And we expect this teacher to potentially kill a child from their own school, should one go nuts and start killing others at the school. Apparently the people who make these suggestions don't realize that even experienced military members would have trouble with that one.

Follow me through the orange portal if you want to see more derisive commentary about this particularly dumb idea.

Lets really think about this, I mean really consider all the elements that come into play here.

Imagine if you had a teacher that was armed, perhaps she has a gun in a holster in her purse, or her desk drawer, or on her waist or back.

How does she [or he] keep small children from accidentally grabbing that? How do we keep children from getting into desk drawers or purses. Or will this teacher open-carry?

Little people are curious and they grab at things. Is that safe? No. It seems to me, putting guns on teachers in younger classrooms creates a curiosity-hazard for small children, and possibly turns a teacher in older grades, into a walking target in other schools.

Most Americans are not trained in gun-fighting or dueling, and have terribly shaky, sweaty hands when holding a gun in a stressful, potentially violent altercation. Hitting the target, even a close one is harder than many realize.

It's one thing to take a breath and squeeze at a range where no one is threatening you, it's another entirely to stand up and basically enter a combat situation and try and hit a moving target that is shooting back. Something like this would require way more than just arming teachers. This would require serious, continuous training with guns in tactical situations. Where is that money going to come from?

Just out of curiosity? We have teachers begging for help to pay for basic supplies, things like toner for printers and copiers, and crayons, but we expect them to suddenly become an armed action hero? Who is going to pay for all the gear and training. I doubt the so-called fiscal Conservative Cliff Jumpers are going to pay for all this!

If a teacher becomes armed, and is basically volunteering to be the armed protector of the school--will they be eligible for hazard pay? After all we arm them with the expectation that they will do what's necessary when and if the time comes.

And what happens if the worst should transpire and that teacher hits the wrong kid by mistake, or simply on accident? Are they immune to prosecution? Is the school immune to prosecution? And who is going to pay for the psychological counseling that teacher will require because of the terrible guilt of something like that. Can we say, "Suicide Watch"? Who is going to pay that early retirement or pension? Will that teacher or school be subject then to a civil suit by the bereaved family?

Would they be protected legally, even from shooting, wounding OR Killing an actual kid-shooter?

This is what I meant in the last diary, when I said that "America is not responsible". Forward thinking has left the building--years ago!  

If we need armed, action heroes to protect our schools, then why not just hire some retired Special Forces type. Wouldn't that be cheaper and safer than arming inexperienced teachers with deadly weapons? It's not like we have any shortage of combat veterans out there looking for a job.

But then again--here's another thought. Maybe if we had some kind of mental health care and screening in place, for kids and adults, maybe we could help people with problems, instead of ignoring them and isolating them, and leaving them to fester with treatable conditions.  

Maybe some of these individuals could be denied access to firearms, because their conditions, properly diagnosed, appear on a background check should they decide to attempt to purchase a gun.

Maybe we need to encourage people to store their firearms properly and stop encouraging huge clips that make for killing easier with no need to reload.

Maybe we could deny anyone who isn't law enforcement or military, the ability to purchase body armor.

Maybe we could redefine what proper comportment is for men and women, and stop imagining or promoting guns as a sign of personal power or glamor.

I am going to be busy face-palming myself for a while and muttering under my breath while I wash dishes.

Seriously--arming teachers--that's right up there with arming doctors or pastors. Fantastic! Am I going to have to suit up like it's 28 Days, so I can go grocery shopping?

5:25 PM PT: I mentioned this in the exchange below, but I want to spell it out here as well. This is an attempt to throw a cheap non-solution at a complex and vexing problem. This is some bean counter's idea on saving money while appeasing frightened citizens. Don't buy into this. They think they will make us "feel" safer by trying to put guns in the hands of inexperienced, untrained personnel for only the cost of the gun and nothing else.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  McCullough doesn't understand (10+ / 0-)

    word one of the Oklahoma Open Carry laws, either. He would have to, first of all, either repeal the Open Carry Laws or amend them.  That's not going to go over well with all the people who worked so hard to get Open Carry in the first place.

    Then, he'd have to, as you so aptly pointed out, provide some avenue of gun training and paying for the gun training, for the teachers and administrators - and consider, too, that many of our teachers and admins are getting older, and some are frail or disabled. What about them?

    Then, there's the expense of the guns and ammo themselves.  Who will buy those guns?  Who will buy that ammo?  The teachers and support staff and admins?  Really?

    There's a reason the Open Carry laws specifically forbid Open Carry in public schools, government buildings and property, and any place that specifically requests that guns be left behind.

    Much better (and cheaper!) to teach manners, to teach social skills, to encourage kindness, politeness, and courtesy.

    All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

    by Noddy on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 08:43:05 AM PST

  •  an apple on the desk and a glock in the drawer (6+ / 0-)

    of course all children will be issued body armor

    thanks for post

  •  bascially what they want are (6+ / 0-)

    armed teachers (who will be little more than temps), forcing kids to pray to their version of their god.

    If that's not a hostile work place...

    pseudoscience can kill

    by terrypinder on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 08:46:11 AM PST

  •  My husband was a police officer for 13 years; (13+ / 0-)

    the most difficult training he ever had was shoot/don't shoot. Shooting a real live human being, even one who is shooting at you or someone you love or are legally and morally responsible for, is much, much more difficult that those who would arm the teachers believe it is.

    I was a professional nanny for under three year olds for twelve years. You are absolutely right about the potential for an accident in a room full of small children and a gun.

                            Thank you,

    Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

    by Chacounne on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 08:46:38 AM PST

    •  Most people have never been faced with the (6+ / 0-)

      idea, that they may actually have to mortally wound another human being, or even an animal.

      They have no idea what they are talking about. Because when you shoot a person, you have decided that the situation is hopeless and there is nothing left to do but....

      That would hard to decide with an adult, it would be so much worse when dealing with a child.

      And that's assuming you have targeted the correct person, and you can hit them, without accidentally shooting anyone else around them.

    •  One of my best friends from high school (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BachFan, GreenMother, sockpuppet

      Richard Rosenthal, a self-professed gun nut, became a New York City cop. He wrote about part of it in his book Rookie Cop: Deep Undercover in the Jewish Defense League, including going out with an assassination team and managing to keep them from doing it without blowing his cover.

      His worst day on the force, he told me and my wife personally, was the day he had to shoot a man to keep him from cutting the throat of a child.

      The way to deal with depressed, angry, suicidal mass shooters is to treat the depression, anger, and thoughts of suicide and never let it get to that state. Or better still, fix the economy and provide jobs to everybody, so we don't have so much depression and anger to begin with. But we know who won't stand for that.

      America—We built that!

      by Mokurai on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:57:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can see this idea (5+ / 0-)

    making some awesome parody videos. "Here kids, gather close to me while I read The Pet Goat. Don't touch the gun. No, stop playing with those bullets."

  •  It's the gun lobby's version of magical thinking. (9+ / 0-)

    They are visualizing what they would do (or, more accurately, what they would WANT to do) in the same situation. They believe THEY would shoot the bastard.  They believe THEY would swoop in and kill the perpetrator, 007-like, and save the day.  

    They apply this magical thinking in every situation, to every victim, and imagine how it would have been different if the good guys had had weaponry.

    They are blinded by fantasy and gun-lobby sloganeering.

    Yes, we need to talk about this. Please sign the dKos Petition to start a national conversation about gun control.

    by GreenMtnState on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 08:52:34 AM PST

  •  Was discussing this (6+ / 0-)

    with a friend who is also a teacher in Oklahoma. She was very distraught and feared she would have to move to another state if this crap passes. There were several other teachers on the thread (FB) and all felt the same.

    What a stupid, stupid idea.

    "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

    by just another vet on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 08:57:54 AM PST

  •  So what happens when (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreenMother, FloridaSNMOM, IreGyre

    the actual police arrive? How do they know who is who?
    They usually follow a coordinated maneuver to clear the venue but with a group of loose cannons operating independently the likelihood of a mistake is increased exponentially.

    But really to get an idea of of how ludicrous the plan is just go over a list in your mind of the teachers in your elementary school and then try to get an image of them forming themselves into a swat team. It would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that the proposal is being taken seriously by a goodly number of otherwise sane people.

    Here's my list.

    Miss M-  5' 1''. In her mid fifties. Eyesight not too good.
    Miss W- White haired lady in her 60's.
    Miss R- Not especially stable emotionally. I would be nervous with her holding a gun any sort anytime, much less in a fire fight.
    Miss S. Nervous, white-haired lady in her 60's.
    Miss L. Wouldn't trust her to know which end to point, besides she would probably mistake the whole commotion for some kind of elaborate show and tell.

    This only goes through the third grade but you get the idea and it doesn't even mention that I think most would simply refuse the weapon but if they did participate there is only one it the group who I  think might actually summon up the resolve to shoot another person, particularly a young one, and she's the one who was too unstable to be anywhere around guns in the first place.

    The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

    by Pirogue on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:37:57 AM PST

    •  I think this is a just a stupid idea in an attempt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to pretend to solve a problem.

      And it's cheap. I mentioned that before.

      How much cheaper would it be to give teachers permission to be armed, but not mandate funds for training, weapons, body armor and ammo?

      Whereas if they hired a professional security person, all of that would be covered in the contract.


      And it's gives them an attempted out, for dealing with the other issues not being addressed.

      Accessibility, and a lack of mental health care and screenings.

  •  The best way to keep guns out of schools (4+ / 0-)

    is to put guns in the schools.

    Yes, makes perfect sense!

    Reach for the sky, Touch the sky, Revive a hope, For Mankind!

    by Greatwyrm on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 10:30:34 AM PST

  •  These "arm everybody" types are so dumb (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    belinda ridgewood, GreenMother

    They give a whole new dimension to irrationality (I don't want to say bad thinking; what they say indicates thinking is beyond their capabilities)

    To teach children and, in particular, small children requires a very special kind of person with special kinds of communication skills.  And the very talent that makes someone an outstanding primary grade teacher almost seems to make them allergic to solving a problem in a violent manner. ( and returning gunfire is violent, even if it is to defend innocence) ...

    There is no need or good reason for weapons and ammunition that were used in this school attack to be available to the general public.  Military use only!

    We can't keep such weapons out of the hands of the wrong people, so don't have them out there!  I realize this doesn't end gun deaths, but it will cut down on the number of deaths and serious injuries.  

    Advocating arming teachers and other school officials just illustrates one of the most basic problems we have in the US today ... the attitude that the best way to solve violent crimes is with more violence

    Give your heart a real workout! Love your enemies!

    by moonbatlulu on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 10:41:55 AM PST

  •  Gun nut heaven... raise ALL kids around guns... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Class field trip to watch teacher at the gun range... jr. ROTC and jr. national guard training in gym class... every school has a firing range... LOCK and LOAD yeehah!!

    all problems can be solved with guns... forget all that book learnin' stuff.

    Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

    by IreGyre on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:08:37 AM PST

  •  Michigan's Gov. Snyder (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    recently advocated for the same thing.  Legislation passed or about to e passed to allow guns in schools including day care centers.  This along with all the other crap they've passed this year.

  •  The diary here (0+ / 0-)

    is pretty clear about the utter ridiculousness of doing this.  

    The gun angle is clearly being discussed.  The mental health angle is at least being talked about.  But I've seen very little on the sexual angle -- that guns are or have become "meaningful" in a sexual way in a place filled with people who, to say the least, in very many cases don't have a "healthy" attitude toward sex.  Is there discussion of this anywhere?

    •  I think that you run the risk of stereotyping (0+ / 0-)

      For people who grew up in a military family or a rural or hunting family or something similar, guns may have more to do with familial traditions, they may be important tools for controlling things like predators that harass livestock, or even putting food on the table.

      But like other aspects of culture, there is a dark side to that. One that we are looking at here. But pathologizing it all as completely sexual, doesn't do justice to the complexities of the human psyche nor the discipline of studying human behavior nor human psychology.

      I may be in the minority here, but I believe this to be a solvable problem, but not a simple one.

      Erratic or dangerous or sick behavior is as singular and individualized as anything else. So trying to profile all gun owners or the psychology of gun ownership solely through the rubric of sex or deviance to me would be on par with pop psychology diagnosis on subjects I have never met.

      Granted, catch me on the right day, and piss me off, I am just as guilty as anyone else in participating in that sort of behavior. But that doesn't make the diagnosis a professional one, nor a correct one, or even relevant to the actual reality of the people or the situations in question.

      •  Not quite what I meant, sorry (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GreenMother, Janet 707

        Just tried to reply to this and lost my comment.  The short version: I didn't mean to lump together everyone with any interest in guns.  When I said "the sexual element", I meant that part of the obsessive and murderous interest in guns we see from certain people.  

        Apologies for appearing to say that any interest in firearms, including as part of the legitimate uses and traditions you mentioned, was of this type.  I meant to say only that the "money shot" so often discussed when pornography comes up seems nontrivially similar to the "spraying bullets" depicted in so, so many action movies and especially first-person shooter games.

        •  You are very kind to clarify, thank you. (0+ / 0-)

          The problem with this particular case is that we don't have any kind of professional diagnosis on record for Adam Lanza. All we have is the hear-say of friends and family in which Ms. Lanza stated her son has Aspergers, and that at some point in Adam's childhood, he had behavioral issues at school.

          And really nothing more to go on. Adam is dead, so unless the feds can piece his hard drive back together and find something there, or find a hand written journal or something, we might never know what drove this particular case.

          Feelings of social rejection have been Identified as contributing factors in may mass-shooting cases, but whether or not it is specifically sexual in nature isn't clear to me so much as it seems these people have some issues connecting with other human beings and feeling part of a community and supported. I don't know what part sex or sexuality might play into that.

          I know some people say to stop bringing mental illness into this discussion, but I don't see how we can avoid it. What else do we call it when someone shows such a distinct lack of empathy, and  holds revenge above all other feelings for society, that makes them want to commit random acts of murder?

          That being said: Mental Illness is a broad term with all sorts of cultural baggage. Someone diagnosed as depressive or bi-Polar doesn't appreciate being look at with suspicion any more than any random, law abiding gun owner.

          So until we have more data on this case, we might get a clear picture, and perhaps this is a sign that we need to create more specific language to address these issues without unnecessarily hurting people.

        •  TamLinny-I wanted to respond further to your (0+ / 0-)


          I meant to say only that the "money shot" so often discussed when pornography comes up seems nontrivially similar to the "spraying bullets" depicted in so, so many action movies and especially first-person shooter games.
          I know this will probably paint me as the worst kind of weirdo, but I don't play those games, in fact all I have is a Wii and of course my PC, which I use mostly for this site and reading various news and following environmental issues.

          I think that perhaps a study is in order:

          How many household have guns, and also allow the presence of First Person Shooters and which ones-- and who in the household is allowed to access one or the other or both?

          I have known other people in the past who had guns, and kids, and would not allow their children to play first person shooter games. So it seems obvious there would be an overlap to some, but it simply  may not be true, or perhaps as prevalent as some might assume.

          Sexual violence and violent language are often associated with war, and with some aspects of gun culture--but the question that I would ask is this:

          Are these violent, suggestive games that enshrine gun violence and porno-chic and sexual violence glorifying law abiding gun ownership, or are these games depicting criminal culture?

          Some might think there is a difference, but it's a fair question.

          The suggestion here is that by playing violent, first person shooters, that this is permissive for similar behaviors in the real world in the minds of some people.

          A comparison would have to be made:

          Where on the spectrum do these depictions and actual, real time behaviors fall on several items is anyone's guess.

          Perhaps some aspiring young social scientist will devise some studies to flush these answers out.

          I say this because you bring up good observations. But this intersects with several items that all by themselves are controversial:

          1. Violent Video Games
          2. First Person Shooter Video Games
          3. Objectification of sex or of women
          4. Pornography
          5. Sexually violent symbolism/ language
          6. Gender Roles--specifically where is the line between acceptible masculine behavior vs a macho pig.
          7.  Gun Ownership

          There are probably more, but you get what I am pointing at here.

          •  All that makes sense for further investigation (0+ / 0-)

            And I'm certain that the observation that makes sense intuitively to me doesn't necessarily match reality or match other people's intuition.  

            As I imagine it, these two kinds of "sexually expressive" activity that I mentioned are kind of two aspects of the same thing, a desire on the part of the "shooter" to have his existence confirmed.  Of course, I'm not a psychologist or a social scientist, and it certainly would make sense to investigate such things further before saying more about them.

            I feel like I'm as guilty as anyone for thinking of things that distract from the primary problem here.  In any case, thanks for the original diary and your other thoughts.  

            •  My intuition upon observing the contents of this (0+ / 0-)

              particular case thus far are this:

              Lanza was taking revenge on someone. Whether that someone was his mother or peers, or society, or other family member I do not know. But he was taking revenge.

              He planned this attack in advance. He shot his own mother to access these guns, and then acquired body armor so that he could inflict maximum damage for a maximum amount of time before he killed himself, to upon spotting police on the scene.

              He covered his motives by destroying his hard drives on his computers.

              And his mother played a part. She knew he had issues. She characterized him as autistic, but in reality, no professional diagnosis was found, so there is some doubt that he had that condition.

              She made the decisions to not only keep these weapons in the home, knowing he had issues, but also trained him in their use. She died for that decision and sadly many others did as well. Whatever her intentions were in this matter, she either missed it that her son was deeply disturbed and suffered depraved indifference, or she was in denial about his condition.

              I don't know how sexuality plays into this on the surface, this seems to be more about making people suffer out of his feeling for a need for some form of vengeance. And this was realized by a parent that was unable to detect, or unable to acknowledge his deep seeded anger and depravity, who made weapons and training available to him when he should have been denied access to anything of the sort.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site