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.