Picture it, senior Calculus Seminar, 2019, Any High School, USA. It’s April, the warm breeze is blowing through an open window, and your teacher is explaining a type of integral you know you’re going to use in real life because you just got accepted to the College of Engineering at the State U. As you fantasize about the labs you’ll be working in next year and how beautiful the people there with you will be, your teacher reaches up to write something on the Smart Board, and her blazer moves just slightly, revealing the handle of her Glock 19, lovingly carried in a purple shoulder holster that matches her blouse. Without a moment’s hesitation, you continue taking notes, and she continues teaching. It’s just another day in America. “I’m glad she’s armed. Nothing can happen to us like this.”, you think to yourself.

OK, enough. Apparently, there are a lot of people in this country who think like this. I know a bunch of them personally, and apparently, people elected quite a few to public office. I keep hearing these ideas discussed, and subsequently denied on Twitter by a certain 45th president, and I have no idea why people can’t see what an objectively horrible idea it would be to arm teachers. Leaving aside our ideals about schools being safe places, and any emotional reaction we may have to guns, there are multiple practical reasons we should take this idea off the table for good, and instead focus on legislation that will help in other ways.

First, let’s think about equipment and its capabilities. This is the one that really jumps out at me. Even if you love guns, this idea makes no sense. Actually, anyone who loves guns and knows anything about them, and still proposes this is being deliberately disingenuous because they know damned well that it won’t work. Mass shooters in recent years tend to use AR-15 rifles, as we have established. One reason they tend to prefer these is because they’re accurate from a long distance. In the Army, we qualified on targets up to 300 Meters with our M-4’s, which are a military grade AR-15 equivalent. If you have good vision, it’s not even difficult to hit those long targets. This rifle is fantastic for picking off targets at a distance. That’s exactly how mass shooters use them, and why they’re so deadly. Nobody can get close. The most recent shooter didn’t even get taken down. He stopped shooting when he decided he was done, and walked away. That’s the kind of prerogative a long range rifle buys a person in that situation. Every proposition I’ve seen has suggested that teachers be armed with handguns as concealed carry permit holders, and right there is where you should stop and declare this idea ineffective and tactically unsound.

In addition to other weapons, I had the opportunity to qualify a couple times with the 9 mm Beretta when I was in the Army, and the first thing I noticed was that the targets were much closer than what I was used to seeing on the M-4 and M-249 ranges! Instead of the closest target being 75 M away, it was more like 5 M, and part of qualifying was firing while walking toward the targets. The reason many staff officers carry 9 mm’s rather than M-4’s, is because they don’t do patrols, and if they need to shoot an enemy, it’s because the wire got breached, a lot of enlisted soldiers with M-4’s got taken out, and they’re going to be in close contact with those combatants. Handguns are for close range. That is what they’re designed for. They are extremely inaccurate at long distances. Arming a teacher with a concealed handgun against a shooter with a long range rifle would not achieve the desired results even if they were an expert marksman, which the majority of teachers are not. It is a gross imbalance in equipment capabilities.

Speaking of accuracy, I read a statistic yesterday that didn’t surprise me a bit. The NYPD has a hit rate of 18% of their targets in live fire situations (the streets, not the range). This doesn’t mean they’re bad shots. They aren’t. They’re well trained professionals who visit the range on a regular basis. As far as accuracy goes, they’re pretty much the best case scenario. They hit 18% of their real world targets because live fire situations are always messy. A suspect doesn’t stay still and wait for the police to shoot them. They run around erratically, seek cover, and you can bet they return fire, necessitating that the officer seek cover as well. The odds of getting a good shot are slim.

Let’s also acknowledge the obvious byproduct of the above situation. 18% of rounds fired by NYPD officers hit their mark. What do you think the other 82% do? They don’t just disappear into thin air. They hit something. With luck, that’s a building, or a tree, or something else inanimate, but in these situations, people are afraid and act unpredictably. If it’s a crowded area (as schools are), then you can just about guarantee that a certain percentage of those rounds are going to hit innocent people. Fortunately, a majority of people who get shot in error don’t die, but they do suffer injuries, sometimes severe, sometimes life limiting. This isn’t a small risk. It’s a reality of gun use in public.

The risks to bystanders drastically outweigh the slim chance an armed teacher could actually get close enough to the shooter to be in range with their sidearm, and get that 18 in 100 shot that takes them down. Chances are, the shooter would take them out before they could get close enough for those 18% odds to even come into play, and that’s assuming the teacher in question is as well trained as an NYPD officer. Since they probably would not be, because they’re teachers, not police officers, the odds are actually much worse.

Next, let’s look at the tactics of an active shooter situation. Anyone who’s ever had training in military or law enforcement knows what a combatant is. Basically, it’s someone with a weapon who looks like they might use it. When you are clearing a room, you take down all combatants you come into contact with. You don’t ask them a bunch of questions about whose side they’re on, and then deliberate on what you should do about it, because if they’re not on your side, they’re going to shoot you while you sit there trying to figure out if you should shoot them. You have to make a one second decision on whether that person is a combatant or not, and then act. In an active shooter situation, when law enforcement enters the building, they are looking for someone with a gun. If you have a gun in that situation, you are going to get shot because you look like a combatant. The only good guys with guns in this scenario are the police. Armed civilians just end up dead. This is a recipe for more dead teachers. Who would actually advocate for that?

There are numerous other reasons this is a bad idea, including cost, training, freak accidents, and it simply not being the job of teachers to take something like this on. We could talk about these aspects of the issue for a week given the chance, but at the end of the day, this is a practical and tactical disaster waiting to happen, and we need to put it out of our minds immediately. I’m disappointed that so many people in this country value guns over human life to such an extent that they would actually propose an idea that would cause more death, and not address the issue at hand in any respect, rather than taking the hard step and coming to the table to create common sense bipartisan legislation to keep our youngest citizens safe in school. We have to demand better than this.

37 thoughts on “Arm the Teachers

  1. I agree with this wholeheartedly, but it is not just our children who are at risk in the current gun-crazed culture of this country. It is every single one of us. Our children and their schools are in the spotlight right now, but let’s not loose sight of the fact that mass shootings are happening everywhere in this country — schools, churches, nightclubs, music venues, office buildings. This isn’t a school safety issue, it’s a life safety issue — everywhere in this country. Our gun culture — our incessant need to interpret the 2nd Amendment as a gun free-for-all (led by our elected leaders) is the problem. More guns is definitely NOT the solution, in the hands of teachers or otherwise.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. You’re absolutely right. These same principles apply everywhere, not just in schools. We have to keep everybody safe, and more guns is never the answer, no matter if it’s a school, a night club, a grocery store, etc.


      1. Thank you for a very thoughtful post.

        Schools are supposed to be safe spaces. We know (if we remember what it’s like to be a student) that they’re really not, that a lot of people get truly hurt there in multiple ways, but at least the *ideal* is that they are safe. Arming teachers, metal detectors, barred windows and doors–they may provide some degree of safety from an outside threat, but any security system can be breached by a determined person. Meanwhile, you will have students walking into buildings that look and feel even more like prisons than they do already. I can’t believe that makes for a healthy learning environment.

        Meanwhile, I can’t help but feel that his is all an attempt to pave the way for an eventual police state. And I’m not normally a conspiracy theorist type, but I feel like that’s where we’re going.


      2. Arming Teachers is a terrible idea, for all the points mentioned. Why would a teacher want THAT responsibility on top of everything else they have to do. Just because a Teacher has a gun doesn’t mean that they will act or that their actions with a gun will result in something positive. Imagine a teacher tries to break up a fight, which happens often in school. The probability of something going wrong is high, student grabs the gun, or a teacher pulls the gun when the situation doesn’t call for it.

        Lets say this was a good Idea, so now what? If I was a teacher I would demand that a typical cops salary be added to mine, ( You Can shove the “added bonus” up your ass, try doubling my salary to start!) and what about training? Are you going to send teachers to some sort of teaching police academy? After all they are going to need some training.

        But this is a bad idea, asinine.


  2. It may not be the first thing on everyone’s mind, but I’m a teacher and this one crossed mine: the thought of shooting a student is extremely distressing and having the means and training to do it would be too much. (Not to mention all of the other reasons that make this responsibility too great to bear…) As teachers, we care deeply about kids — almost no one would choose to spend 8 hours a day in a classroom with 30+ kids, if they didn’t (I teach 13-15 year-old kids, which comes with plenty of day-to-day challenges, as it is). There’s an instinct to protect them, sure, but I think our instinct to try to save them all, especially the troubled ones, would make it impossible for us to fire or, at least, impossible to do it in any effective way. I think that’s how it would play out for me, anyway. It’d take mountains of special training to overcome that instinct since many of us think of them all as “our kids” and have spent hours upon hours with them packed in a classroom. By the time all of this is factored in, along with the reasons you listed above, our accuracy would be near-zero.

    There are so many other issues, too. Would students actually feel safer knowing I’m strapped or that I have a gun locked in my desk? I doubt it. And, it would keep the threat of violence at the very front of everyone’s mind to have a gun right there in the classroom with us. Then, there’s cost and enormous liability issues for both the teachers and the school. The whole suggestion is just mind-boggling from the practical to the logistical to the ethical issues.

    At any rate, I’m enjoying reading your posts. They are incredibly thoughtful and well-reasoned.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I absolutely agree on every point, and you echo everything I’ve been saying for years. I’m seriously frightened by how many people obviously cannot see the reasonable, sane truth.


  4. Well articulated. Based on the logic of arming teachers to neutralize combatants, it would not be a stretch that students and teachers wearing full body armor in schools will be proposed, if not already.

    The main goal for the NRA is to sell more guns, using 2nd Amendament as its cover, which this arming classroom teacher proposal will surely deliver. The NRA missed so many opportunities to stand up for responsible gun ownership by supporting sensible measures to reduce gun violence.


  5. It’s nice to see the perspective of someone who is knowledgeable about firearms and does not fall into the “gun nut” category. I appreciate your thoughts.


    1. “gun free zones” aren’t usually gun-free. (except in NRA myth)
      In “free for all” jurisdictions, “gun free zones” allow authorized armed security to *legally* stop an unauthorized armed person.


    2. public shooters usually have an earlier affiliation with the location, such as school, workplace, or spouse’s workplace.
      I don’t now recall where I read about this, but some of the shooters leave diaries or notes, and none have mentioned “gun free zones” as a concern.
      Perhaps some public shooters have mentioned that concern *since* I read what I read (circa 2012?)


  6. I’m embarrassed to say it didn’t even occur to me, the idea that a teacher could potentially – even somewhat probably – accidentally hit a student when “trying to take down the bad guy.” What an awful place our country is in.


    1. Fortunately in the real world, the good guy recognizes the prohibitive risks of taking a shot at the bad guy.
      Almost all incidents of ‘good guy” stopping a “bad guy” is after the bad guy has left the risky environment – and is usually stopped outside of a building, such as in a parking lot.
      This type of “stopping” has value, but occurs after the shooting is done.
      Additional potential value is when the shooter had intended to drive to another location and shoot more.

      Bonus: People on twitter are sparsely posting videos or photos of teachers losing their self-control with students, though not using a *firearm* against the student.


  7. Logically and tragically, the first target of every school assailant, after the first teacher is armed, will be a teacher. And that tragedy will make nary a dent in the ongoing tragedy.


  8. I respectfully disagree with you. Speaking as a former LEO and military, civilians have a much better hit ratio than most police officers. Go to any IDPA or other competition to see my point proven. These civilians go to the range 1-2X per month, sometimes more often. As a law enforcement firearms and use-of-force instructor, I know that many law enforcement agencies do requalification every six months, however, many also only requalify 1X per year. Typical police officers ONLY go to the range when required. Most IDPA competitors like myself shoot at least two times per month. IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association) events are made up of different scenarios which involve complex situations to include moving targets. It’s not a static event the whole premise is realistic real-life scenarios where there is a lot of moving and shooting, you move, AND targets move as well. It is my contention there are thousands of teachers nationwide who shoot and compete and would enthusiasticly take on the mantle and responsibility to protect Our children.


    1. Whoever is authorized, they will have to meet standards. I wonder if the public will will then demand improvement of erratic and poor standards of certain PD or Sheriffs


  9. All excellent points from a shooting statistic point of view, and it doesn’t even touch on the socio-psychological reality that when guns are present, there is simply a higher likelihood that someone is going to get shot. Great post. I wish this one would go viral too. It’s less emotion-triggering and brings up points I’m not hearing anyone talk about. Right, what happens when the wrestling coach misses his target and shoots an innocent kid?

    I’m sure you lost a bit of sleep after your last post. I went viral-ish once after being featured on wordpress “discover” and the extra attention didn’t leave me feeling that great.


  10. I keep noticing logical fallacies in your writing, particularly when you cite an analogy or example to support your point.

    Example: 18% of NYPD bullets miss and land elsewhere, implying the bullets will hit innocent people. “Dude. NO.” Everybody who can runs and hides when the shooting starts, leaving the shooter alone. Cops miss from adrenaline nerves, or seeking cover while ducking and dodging bullets. But when the cops start shooting back, the bad guy’s aim goes bad, and he starts missing. If nobody shoots back, the bad guy just keeps killing. THERE you have the problem with your logic.

    As for the effectiveness of a pistol, a person who knows the point and shoot technique shoots accurately by pointing, without aiming. A 9mm can easily kill and maim at 50 yards, and most school shootings occur indoors or in classrooms where the distances are usually much smaller. That moots your rifle logic.

    Schools should arm patrol guards with bullpup short barrel 5.56mm rifles like the Tavor with frangible rounds. They should arm teachers with compact 9mm pistols with frangible rounds- females can wear a bra or thigh holster to conceal it. And it will take only a couple of dead teen thugs to teach students not to try disarming the teacher, a lesson worth the grieving of parents who feel secretly glad to have lost their bad egg.

    Genghis Kahn was said to have remarked that government doesn’t miss dead children because parents can make more of them in short order, but it sorely misses dead taxpayers and soldiers. I tend to agree. If allowed to thrive, bad eggs victimize many during their formative and adult years – society should nip them in the bud, along with the parents who produce and train them to iniquity.

    This brings me to the most glaring flaw in your “Dude. No.” gun control thesis. It ignores the salient reality that 25% of the nation’s population is dumb as a bucket of rocks – incurably stupid because stupid parents procreated them and because of the genetic nature of the stupidity disease. Use your engineering mind to evaluate the Gaussian distribution of IQ scores of racial groups.

    Roughly 22 million Negroes, 25 million non-white Hispanics, and 33 million Caucasians have IQ below 85, the level required to graduate from a high school that administrators have not intentionally dumbed down to allow the stupid to pass. That gives 80 million people who will gravitate to crime and welfare abuse because they cannot compete for the better jobs or mates. They will procreate without restraint, unlike their much smarter counterparts who don’t procreate sufficiently to sustain their gene groups. Such people become the cause of most street crime, and they become miscreants in school because being thrown in with smarter students makes them frustrated and angry. Smarter students hate being around them, but have no choice. Such conditions stimulate some into going “postal” in school. Ritalin and other mind altering drugs turn children into potentially explosive trouble. Hence, integration might have contributed to school shootings.

    Pogo said it best: “We has found the enemy, and he is us.” America should not remain a cesspool breeding ground for the maggots of stupidity. The lack of any procreation controls, and near-lack of immigration controls has made the stupid grow, and the smart shrink, as a percentage of the population. Our schools hurry that process along by throwing the smart in with the stupid. And you know what that means – people generally end up fucking those them meet in school, workplace, or clubs. And whoever fuck also procreate.

    Until America cures the foregoing problems, Americans should pack heat and keep an assault weapon handy at home in case things go really bad. That brings me to your apparent theory that only the government should control access to assault weapons.

    No matter what you think, Government forces cannot go everywhere at once, and governments can and do go rogue, such as at Ruby Ridge and Waco. No one can blame communities of people who keep to themselves for arming themselves against such rogues. We can feel fortunate because we have not seen Nazi SS troopers invading our homes, smacking us around, looting, raping, and destroying. But we have certainly seen crowds of Negroes and Democrats intimidating, looting, and destroying. We trust that our government will stay essentially good, but nothing, absolutely NOTHING, guarantees it.

    Our Constitution provides for state militias to ward off invasion (such as the one through our Mexican border). Congress must provide officers, but the people supply their own small arms. The National Guard armories might have sufficient weaponry to field a sizeable militia, but do you have any proof of that? I don’t. And I have never heard of or seen Congress appoint any officers or State governments attempt to organize or training for any state militias. Have you? I didn’t think so.

    Until we see such leadership and organization, we rightly surmise none exists and won’t exist until a crisis has come and gone. NOW constitutes the only viable time for a population to arm itself against invasion, insurrection, terrorist mayhem, or invasion. And the arms should suffice for that purposes. Otherwise why bother? THAT shoots the biggest hole in your gun control theory. Yes your arguments soften our hearts, but your logic has an inescapable sourness to it, the faint but unmistakable stench of tyranny in the making.

    By the way, let me address your argument that “we had weapons in the armory but we didn’t carry them around” on your military base. I’ll give you the main reason. In combat, you have a definite chain of command, operative, and in force. A sergeant has grilled, disciplined, and stood on the necks of his minions throughout boot camp and other training. And his commanding officer stands on him and all the troops through the chain of command, ensuring that they will follow orders or face severe discipline. They keep subordinates on a short leash and under constant scrutiny. But when soldiers go about their personal business on and off base, nobody stands by to scrutinize and control their behavior or pull them up short on that longer leash. This combination of leash length, so to speak, gives reasonable liberty and control to the organization and its members.

    But take a look at the members. The military has members as young as 17 who might not have the intelligence to graduate from high school, depending on the branch of service and the crises of recruitment. Many, if not most, have lived under poor to abusive parental supervision. The military tries, but cannot, undo a lifetime of habitual malingering, conniving, malfeasance, thuggishness, wimpiness, pampering, or abuse from formative parenting. That explains why a sergeant and a chain of command stand on the recruits 24/7 during basic training, and closely monitors them thereafter, hoping they will stand firm or advance bravely in the face of enemy fire. Government simply cannot trust its soldiers to behave according to orders, even after the gruel of basic training. Wherefore, it keeps combat weapons under lock and key except during weapons training or combat deployment.

    The public has no chain of command upon which it can rely for highly trained, excellent leadership. Until a more selfless and enlightened ethos becomes the world pattern for living, the people must fend for themselves without excellent, reliable leadership, and military police to protect them and prevent unauthorized access to their living quarters, business offices, training grounds, and streets, and without any reasonable assurance of freedom from abuse by their protectors among the police and courts. That might seem unfortunate to some, but liberty has its blessings to justify its curses. Many, I among them, believe that the legalized plunder that characterizes modern western governments have enslaved productive populaces through debt and taxation to fund the miscreant and feckless of society, as well as the corporate and foreign recipients of welfare. That enslavement has taken on the hue of an evil force inimical to the welfare of intelligent and productive people. ONLY ONE force that keeps that evil in check: the pistols, shotguns, rifles, and assault weapons of the more responsible elements in the populace with a will to use them to suppress tyranny.

    By that I mean your Pollyanna misgivings about public possession of sniper, assault, and fully automatic machine guns must bow to the history written in the blood of populations whom governments or poverty have disarmed. So a few crazy bastards get their hands on assault rifles and take out a bevy of students or abortion clinic patients. In view of the history of tyranny, that has become a minuscule price to pay for the freedom to possess dangerous firearms. In time, government will find a way to keep crazy bastards from getting their hands on such weapons without disarming everyone else.

    So, Dude. Yes. Americans have good and sufficient historical reasons for staying trained on their loaded assault weapons and keeping them stashed at home, easily owner-accessible, well-maintained, and ready for use. We never know when peace, good will, order, and public safety will go totally and quickly to shit, such as the slaughter at the October 2017 Harvest Music Festival at the Las Vegas strip, or the June 2016 slaughter at the Orlando Pulse night club. or the August 2014 rampaging Negro riots in Ferguson, MO.

    Let your engineering mind consider that any reasonably well-trained combat marksman with a concealed 9 mm or .40 cal. pistol could have instantly terminated the recent slaughters at the schools, churches, movie theaters, and night club, and any combat marksman with an assault rifle could have terminated the slaughter at Las Vegas.

    If such episodes of mayhem worry you, start blogging about the need for state and county governments to form and train militias, maintain local, fast-access armories, coordinate militias with local police and sheriff deputies, and provide assault-weapon-armed, volunteer former US Marine/SpecOps citizens to patrol public assemblages that law enforcers simply cannot or will not accommodate.

    Please forgive any to-be verbs or passive voice that I might have injected into my writing above. I don’t do this for a living.


    1. IQ from two very intelligent people make less intelligent offspring. Don’t know where you are getting the data to back the premise that dumb people are creating a dumb nation. Immigrants are smarter than the general population because of languages they know. Knowing more than one language generates synopses in the brain that makes it easier to.learn.


      1. The Mexican aborigine tribespeople invading southern California never integrated into Spanish society well enough to learn the language. Most immigrants from Iberoamerica and the Caribbean islands are not very intelligent. Mexicans have an average IQ of 87, and Haitians have an average IQ of 67.


      2. NOTHING is vague about an IQ test, and IQ tests reliably predict a person’s ability to evaluate relative importances and make rational choices. Anyway, you could look at the decision as to whether to arm school teachers as something of a societal IQ test. Evidently American society is pretty stupid, allowing leftists to determine the circumstances of education, throwing together the smart and stupid, and not providing instruction in self and group defense against terrorists. Israelis, by contrast, are pretty smart. Their school teachers carry assault rifles, and that keeps their students relatively safe. People determined to defend themselves and armed with weapons and training, suffer fewer injuries at the hands of terrorists that whiners who refuse do to arm teachers and insist that they attend a course in combat marksmanship and requalify periodically.


    2. “implying the bullets will hit innocent people”
      Maybe OP edited (or did not edit) after you commented. I am quoting the relevant *current* text here:
      “They don’t just disappear into thin air. They hit something. With luck, that’s a building, or a tree, or something else inanimate, but in these situations, people are afraid and act unpredictably. If it’s a crowded area (as schools are), then you can just about guarantee that a certain percentage of those rounds are going to hit innocent people.”


      1. You seem to suggest that defenders will wildly fling shots around, and cannot hit what they point at. THAT is absurd. Sure, accidents can happen, but they will cause far less injury than a determined terrorist intent upon slaughtering the innocent.


  11. “consider that any reasonably well-trained combat marksman with a concealed 9 mm or .40 cal. pistol could have instantly terminated the recent slaughters at the schools, churches, movie theaters, and night club, and any combat marksman with an assault rifle could have terminated the slaughter at Las Vegas.”

    coulda woulda shoulda. Real life is not like TV.
    Shooters have begun wearing ‘body armor’ and using adjunct methods in their attacks.
    There aren’t that many combat-experienced marksmen in every public location.


  12. “ONLY ONE force that keeps that evil in check: the pistols, shotguns, rifles, and assault weapons of the more responsible elements in the populace with a will to use them to suppress tyranny.’
    Statements so aloof from reality should get you adjudicated as mentally ill.
    In truth, only civilization maintained by the more sane majority prevents you from being robbed of your Precious.


    1. To me, a former military expert marksman, it seems mentally ill to suggest that modern teachers should not carry a 9mm pistol, like the Keltec 24/7, SigSauer P320, CZ P10, Ruger LC9S and have combat marksmanship training in using it in a school terrorism setting. Why? Because many teachers have to deal with thuggish students with a history of abusing teachers physically. And, the swarms of Islamic Jihadists entering our land from Africa, Pakistan, India, and the Mideast have created a culture clash that will continue coming to a head, possibly violently and in schools. Teachers need training in summarily defeating, by shooting if necessary, brutish student who try to attack or disarm the teacher. It seems mentally ill to suggest that teachers remain vulnerable to and defenseless against such dire threats to their lives. Sure, teachers should make students feel loved, respected, and cared for, so long as students do not cross that line and become a threat to the teacher.


  13. I’m from the UK so obviously have a rather different perspective on all this but these recent posts bring three things to mind.

    The first is how nonsensical the whole idea of arming teachers is as a method to stop school shootings. Giving them a stick because someone else may attack them with a stick is akin to the cold war and any other escalation scenario. The active shooter, from what I understand, is rarely acting on impulse. They’ve deliberated, planned and stewed over their course of action. Thus, knowing if teachers are armed, they plan accordingly; body armour, alternative points of attack (they often know the school so will also likely know who is and isn’t armed and commence attack in a relatively safe area), disruption tactics. Knowing teachers are armed, would the assailant now not try to procure or fashion devices like flash bangs, grenades, IED or other such weapons with which to begin their assault and/or cause panic and disruption. Instead of entering school grounds could they gun students down at the bus stop, the local McDonald’s or any other gathering place where there is less chance of armed defendants? Or is that the kind term goal, to arm everyone everywhere, just in case? It just seems like you’ll always be needing to give the home team a bigger stick to keep up. Tasers would seem to be a reasonably happy medium for classroom/close range use. Perhaps the development of multi angle firing tasers, shooting prongs across a wider arc of fire would lessen the need for accuracy.

    Second, putting guns in classrooms will inevitably lead to some instances of weapons being taken from, and used against, the teacher. Likely to be rare but the teacher is never going to be able to adequately protect their weapon from a student committed to taking it without warning. Unless you’re going to ensure the weapon is kept in a classroom safe or the teacher authorised to carry it is also given advanced defensive tactics training and is pumped up on high alert every minute of the school day!

    I don’t subscribe to the no guns train of thought as it’s way past that point in your country. We get enough gun crime in the UK and not one of the people doing it have any legal access to firearms (except the occasional farmer who decides to shotgun people). We also live on an island so it’s hard to get guns in to the country but it still happens. Banning weapons when there are millions of them floating around is utterly pointless as if you want one, you’ll always find a way of getting one. Control still isn’t a great method as again, you want one, you’ll get one. Perhaps the best answer is education and emotional support to help avoid the very small minority of people going down such a desperate path. There were clear warnings with this latest one but not enough attention was paid. Investment in tackling emergent behaviour seems to me a better approach than paying to train, arm and monitor students.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s