Essay On Arming Teachers

Is There Support for Arming Teachers in Schools?

1999, Columbine High School Massacre, 12 students and one teacher were killed. 2007, Virginia Tech shooting, 32 students killed. 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 20 children killed along with 6 adults. 2018, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, 17 students killed. 2018, Santa Fe High School shooting, 10 students killed. The bar graphs on the top right show the number of school shootings since Columbine, which is around 10 school shootings happen every year. The bar graph at the bottom right shows how many students are affected by school shootings, which has increased dramatically since Columbine, from about 5,000 students in 1999 to 12,752 in 2018. The increasing numbers has thus beginning a conversation

of gun control, mental health, second amendment rights, and arming teachers in order to protect students. Yes, student safety is a priority, but arming teachers is not going to solve society’s gun issue. If anything, arming teachers will only pose a threat to students safety.
There are very two different binary viewpoints regarding this issue of arming teachers in schools in order to protect students. Those in favor agree with Nirvi Shah as she argues in her article, “ Teacher Already Armed in Some Districts” that teachers and principals should be armed since they are the first respondents, and would therefore minimize the tragedies. Shah states that from the time the police are informed of a armed school intruder, it takes three to five minutes, which is three to five minutes that the students and school personnel are left defenseless. Getting armed security personnel is too expensive, and because of lack of funding are therefore out of school budgets, which is why schools are resorting to arming teachers instead. Harold Independent School has become one of the very first schools to arm its teachers, which begun in 2007. In order for teachers to carry concealed guns, they must have an approved concealed weapons permit, undergo training in crisis intervention and hostage situations, carry non ricocheting bullets, and be individually approved by the schools board. The guns contain frangible ammunition which breaks into small pieces on contact, preventing richochect, and therefore minimizing damage. Many schools are considering laws similar to that of Harold Independent School, since it puts student safety as a priority.
On the other hand, those who oppose arming teachers, argue that teachers are in no way fit to carry guns. Those against agree with Kenneth Trump as he argues in his article, “Arming Teachers and School Staff with Guns: Implementation Issues Present School Boards and Administrations with Significant Responsibility and Potential Liability” that teachers do not want to be armed with weapons, instead they want to be safe and be provided with the resources they need in order to teach. Teachers enter a profession to teach and serve a supportive nurturing role with children, not to kill someone. Carrying a gun to ensure the safety of students takes intensive training, which lasts months and even years. Even if teachers were permitted to carry a weapon, does not mean they will actually be prepared in real life situations, which can pose a further threat to students. Arming teachers would also mean that the schools would be held responsible for all liabilities, and that is more pressure that schools cannot handle. Teachers should not be armed, it should be left to professional school public safety officials. Public schools in Chesapeake Virginia have assigned armed and trained police officers in schools in order to protect students and school personnel.
Personally, I disagree with the idea of arming school teachers, because as a student, I know that would make me feel more unsafe in an environment which is suppose to be safe. To begin with, the responsibility of teachers is to educate students, not to be public safety officials. As Julie Bosman and Stephanie Saul argue in their article, “Teachers Are Educators, Not Security Guards: Educators Respond to Trump Proposal,” arming teachers would negatively affect the relationship between students and teachers. Students view teachers as nurturing individuals, mentors, role models, who they go to seek help, and arming them would only make students afraid of teachers, which could potentially affect their academic performance. Although if teachers receive training on how to handle a gun, their response will be different in a real life scenario since panic will hit. Teachers did not go into the profession to deal guns, if not they would have chosen to join the army or become a police officer. Teachers only responsibility should be to educate students.
Allowing teachers to carry guns will only make schools more dangerous.

Schools are perceived as save heavens, and bringing guns to this environment will only extent the amount of violent crimes students experience (Bosman et al). Arming teachers will greatly affect how comfortable or safe minority students feel. Minority students are already taught to be cautious around police officers, since some user their power and weapons to act upon their racist views. So arming teachers would make minority students feel unsafe, have them more alert, and therefore discourage them from attending school since they will no longer trust their teachers. As mentioned in the article, “Why Teachers Should Not Carry Guns,” there is no guarantee that the teacher will reach for the gun in other circumstances, like using it to break up a fight or to discipline students. The guns could also end up in the wrong hands, if the teacher leaves the gun attended or if students distract the teacher in order to get it, more casualties can occur. Instead of money going to arm teachers, that money should be spent on books, computers, and other school materials that are essential in order for students to attain a high

education.
Many argue that teachers should be armed because they are the first respondents, however, if armed, it will only make the job more difficult when police officers first arrive. As Matthew Santoni argues in his article, “Arming Teachers: Pros and Cons” arming teachers will make hard for police officers to distinguish between gunfire from the active shooter and that from staff shooting.
There are many more solutions to keep students safe in schools that do not require arming teachers, which is another reason why I am against the idea. For example, banning the sales of semi automatic assault rifles like the one used in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting will make it more difficult for perpetrators to attack as much victims. Changes could also be made in legislation, like raising the age to buy guns to 21 instead of 18, and making it a federal law so that it does not vary by state. Trained officers could also be placed in schools since they are well equipped and know how to react in such situations, unlike teachers. Educating students, school personnel, parents, and communities about mental health could also prevent more schools shootings from occuring. Parents and students will be informed on how to seek help for someone who is showing signs of such dangerous behavior.
The decision to arm teachers or not will greatly affect the future generation of learners. If teachers were to be armed, the future generation of learners will be exposed to a violent school environment. They will be distant from teachers, negatively affecting their academic performance, since the relationship between students and teachers will be altered. However, if teachers are not armed and instead that funding is used for school materials, and for programs to educate students, parents, and communities on mental health then the future generation of learners will be more well equipped and educated with these issues. These children are our future, and we have to put their safety first, and be role models on how to deal with such issues.