Would Arming Teachers Make Schools Safer?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 ноя 2024
- Traditionally thought of as gun-free zones, some schools are now allowing teachers to carry guns in classrooms- an effort that is meant to increase school safety, particularly when it comes to stopping school shootings. But this move is sparking controversy nationwide, as many opponents question whether arming teachers with guns would actually make schools safer.
TEACHERS: Get your students in the discussion on KQED Learn, a safe place for middle and high school students to investigate controversial topics and share their voices.
learn.kqed.org...
ABOVE THE NOISE is a show that cuts through the hype and investigates the research behind controversial and trending topics in the news. Hosted by Myles Bess.
Follow us on Instagram @kqedabovethenoise
*What are the main arguments for allowing teachers to carry guns at school?*
Some arguments in favor of arming teachers include that if teachers had guns, they would actually be able to defend against an attack - potentially minimizing deaths. Supporters often point to instances where armed bystanders have stopped shootings in other places. Additionally, arming teachers could act as a deterrent- if potential shooters knew teachers were armed, they may be less likely to carry out an attack.
*What are the main arguments against allowing teachers to carry guns at school?*
Many opponents worry that there’s too much potential for something to go wrong if you allow teachers to carry guns. What happens if a student gets ahold of a teacher’s gun, or if they accidentally shoot an innocent bystander. There’s also concern that a teacher could misinterpret a student’s actions and shoot at someone unnecessarily, and this is especially a concern for students of color- where research shows they are disproportionately disciplined more than white students. Could implicit racial bias lead to a teacher unnecessarily shooting at a student of color? There’s also concern that training and arming teachers is expensive and could take funding away from other academic or school safety resources.
SELECTED SOURCES:
Should Teachers Carry Guns? The Debate, Explained (EdWeek) www.edweek.org...
Arming Schoolteachers: What Do We Know? Where Do We Go From Here? (American Journal of Public Health) ajph.aphapubli...
School shootings are extraordinarily rare. Why is fear of them driving policy? (Washington Post) www.washington...
10 years. 180 school shootings. 356 victims. (CNN)www.cnn.com/in...
Should teachers carry guns? In many rural school districts, they already are. (Pacific Standard) psmag.com/educ...
Most U.S. Teachers Oppose Carrying Guns in Schools (Gallup) news.gallup.co...
U.S. Voters Oppose Steel, Aluminum Tariffs, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Voters Oppose Armed Teachers, Back Armed Security 6-1 (Quinnipiac University Poll) poll.qu.edu/na...
State and Local Law Enforcement Training Academies, 2013 (U.S. DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics) www.bjs.gov/co...
Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student (Washington Post) www.washington...
Black Students 'Face Racial Bias' In School Discipline (Forbes)
www.forbes.com...
After Ferguson, black men still face the highest risk of being killed by police (PBS NewsHour) www.pbs.org/ne...
A History of Shootings at Military Installations in the U.S. (NBC 6 South Florida) www.nbcmiami.c...
FOR EDUCATORS
KQED Learn learn.kqed.org
KQED Teach teach.kqed.org
KQED Education ww2.kqed.org/e...
/ kqededspace
About KQED
KQED, an NPR and PBS affiliate in San Francisco, CA, serves Northern California and beyond with a public-supported alternative to commercial TV, Radio, and web media. Funding for Above the Noise is provided in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Silver Giving Foundation, Stuart Foundation, and William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
#gunviolence #schoolsafety
This question tends to provoke pretty quick answers, depending on where you stand on gun control. But watch the video and let us know if learned anything about "the other side's" viewpoint.
My long reply is not because I'm mad at you. As with all your videos this was solid. I'm just grossly disappointed that this question even exists. You mention most of them in the video. And even the counter examples work out to a fraction of a fraction of a percent of all like incidents.
People are also much less likely to escalate a situation if they are unarmed. I won't be the slightest bit shocked if this sort of thing leads to a rise in deaths, rather than a drop.
@@oafkad Thanks for your thoughtful response and contributing to the conversation!
@@oafkad I respectfully disagree with your last statement. We are talking about an active shooter on school grounds not a disagreement between student & teacher in the classroom. The active shooter at school is a predator who is looking to harm as many people possible. There is no escalation because they are already violent. And in all cases where someone confronts the active shooter with a firearm, either law enforcement officer or armed citizen, the violence stops and the body count ends. I think there should be a choice. I would want teachers to have the ability to possess best tools available and stop an active shooter from harming anyone in that classroom.
The question exists because we are human. Some folks do not respect or cherish life as normal folks do, and choose to prey upon the weak and defenseless. Some folks are willing and able to stand up to that evil and protect life. To me, it does not matter if the protector has a badge, a teaching degree, fellow (adult) student or a parent.
I consider myself pretty anti gun control because I think to restrictive gun control is authoritarian but arming teachers is even more authoritarian than gun control.
We know unequivocally that the police can not be counted on to protect children. Not every teacher need be armed, nor do they need to carry a gun on their person in the classroom. But on site armed security is the best option.
Wow, kudos to y’all for your treatment of this issue. One small nit to pick: on most military bases in the US, very few people have guns.
Very true. After the 2009 Ft. Hood incident, there was talk of allowing personnel to conceal carry with the base commander's permission. To my knowledge, no base commander has allowed anyone other than assigned military law enforcement personnel to carry off duty.
This popped in my head as soon as I heard them say military bases lol
Only MPs. Everyone else has their guns in the armory. Try taking a gun out of the armory without approval and say bye bye to your career/freedom
Truth!!!
As a high school student, I'd personally feel way safer with teachers being armed. The fact that my teachers would be able to fire back at a shooter, and possibly injure the shooter and stop the shooting would make me feel safe. I also live in a fairly rural area so first responders would take a bit longer to get here than most other areas.
Simply put, teachers should be allowed to carry guns if they want to. They shouldn't be forced, but if they want to carry a gun at school they should be able to. I would definitely feel a million times safer if they did
I agree. Good post.
what if you teacher hates you and shoots you lmao
I'm really happy you feel safe with it! But I do not trust any of my teachers with a gun. I know so many teachers in my school that wouldn't just use a gun on a school shooter. Because I know so many teachers in my school that are creepy, get angry fast, and just weird in general. It'd be a great law if all students could actually trust their teachers. But I know a lot don't.
Most private schools here in Florida have armed teachers and coaches. Most are retired military who are the ones armed. As a parents, I love it.
I am a teacher, I have been a shooter my entire life. I would love to be able to defend my students and myself if a school shooting were to happen at my school. As stated in the video, this is not a simple thing to put in place, but it is something that I believe all school districts should be able to do if they so choose. Thank you for this video that simply states the facts and does not push any agenda, a rare thing these days.
How do you feel regarding the students not feeling safe in class because some teachers hold biases against students of color or have demonstrated poor temperament towards certain students? I genuinely asking
@@shanhussain6114 Are you are saying students would not feel safe with those teachers being armed? I would hope that those people would not make it through the screening process to be armed in the first place. If they did, and they used the fact that they were armed to intimidate a student in any way, I would feel they should be fired. I would also say that any teacher should leave any personal feelings they have about a particular student or group of students at the front door of the school. I work with who I have in class, and our relationship starts over each day. If you had a bad day with me yesterday that doesn't mean we need to have a bad day today. I hope this answered your question.
@@scottbrady5127 but that's just it; you're a good person. There have been many reports of police who shot unarmed minorities and and we know they passed through the screening process. Are you that certain that a few unqualified teachers would not be able to do the same? Do you think it is truly possible to adequately vet a teacher for such a program? Once again, I'm genuinely asking, I'm not a gun owner and I also know not everyone with a gun is a nutjob. Do you think it can be done? How can we be so sure?
@@scottbrady5127 A screening process to be armed in the first place? What a controversial concept.
@@scottbrady5127 cool teacher
Above The Noise: You covered this topic very nicely. Great video.
Now my opinion: The fact that this question is being asked is indicative of just how ignorant the leaders of our society have become. When any problem occurs in life, the solution is not to address the symptoms while ignoring or failing to solve the cause of the problem. Problems are solved by addressing the problem, not the symptoms. Gun violence is not like the common cold. You can't simply ease the symptoms while expecting the problem to go away. Unaddressed problems will continue to occur until an outside force causes the problem to change or go away. The United States needs to face the fact that more people die of gun violence in this country than nearly anywhere else in the world. Instead of putting guns in the hands of educators, it would be infinitely wise to remove federal bans on the study of gun violence so that we better understand how to address the problem. Address the problem, not the symptoms.
Charles Magnuson more people die by guns in the US than anywhere else because it has one the highest populations. The video was just another generic piece of leftist propaganda. They continued to harp on school shootings without even considering the number of times guns were used for deterrent or defensive purposes.
Gun violence is a problem but guns aren’t the reason for the violence. To truly stop mass shootings you have to focus on the actual problem and get them help for their mental illnesses. It’s better to cure than inhibit.
Charles Magnuson did you know, the US police killed 992 people in 2018, war killed 917 US soldiers...
@@beachboardfan9544 Did you know most, as in the majority, of people killed by cops are justified on the cops end? This statistic doesn't give details about WHY they were killed by cops. Suicide by cops, people taking out a weapon on cops, cops protecting others from a dangerous person, people trying to run over cops, these are the biggest reasons people are killed by cops. You hear about every unjustified killing, which goes to show that they are rare. Its like how car crashes kill so many people in a day, but you hear more on the news about plane crashes.
More people are killed with knives, cars, and blunt objects than guns.
Charles Magnuson how to stop gun violence get rid of guns seriously it's not that confusing
Wow! Who knew that removing a law abiding citizen's ability to carry a tool to protect themselves would leave them open to being victimized by criminals 🙄
what if you teacher hates you and shoots you lmao
I honestly believe with training and everything it would be the best option. Yes it has cost but so does hiring security. None of the students should know who is armed or where the gun would be located. But in today's world I feel teachers should have that right to protect if they want to.
With training, concealed carry, etc, yes. Instead of waiting five, ten, twenty minutes for the police to show up, with guns, the teacher/staff then has the opportunity to stop the shooting for continuing.
If some teachers are to cowardly to carry firearms for the safety of their students then why don’t schools hire there own personal security guard with a firearm?
Only in USA you can even think about this question...
wtf of course no...
@@McBotabeans exactly! It's like comparing the numbers to the amount of people to be mauled by a bear after slapping it in the face, answer=irrelevant! 72 is 72 too many! Only in America can the answer be to add more guns!
@Gary Winthorp what? xD
@Gary Winthorp free speech is for the delusional. There's no such thing! Isn't America home to Google, Twitter and Facebook? How can you claim your from a country that allows "free speech" when anyone that goes against the grain gets deplatformed !? It's only in America that school shootings are a genuine issue! Something needs to change, and adding more guns is like throwing petrol on a fire!
@Gary Winthorp I'm fully aware of the flaws within my country and would not disagree with you at all and definitely wouldn't get all defensive because of it! I'm not obsessed with your country, but school shootings is an almost uniquely American phenomena, and hell would freeze over before I sent my child to a school that had teachers carrying guns!
Comparing the USA to Europe is like comparing North America to South America! Europe is comprised of many different countries, each with their own governments,laws and cultures, despite the attempts made by the EU in trying to create one super state, and yes there has been an issue with terrorism in some countries. But that has more to do with proximity! Sadly even the USA hasn't been immune from this madness!
I'm British,and I have no problem with our American cousins. But the fact that guns are so readily available is such an alien concept.Despite all the checks and assessments of potential gun owners, so many people with a clear mental illness are able to get their hands on a gun and not only take the lives of so many poor children in one go, but also devastate their poor families also! Dismissing or understating this because of a constitutional right is not the right way to move forward!
Maybe the constitutional right to bear arms is a little out of date and archaic? Maybe the only ones to benefit from more guns on the streets are the over bloated private companies that actually make them!
Again your right, Facebook, Twitter and Google are private companies. But they are driven by public trends! The social cleansing that has and is still taking place across all three platforms isn't a coincidence!
@Gary Winthorp well done. As I said I'm fully aware of the flaws within my country, mass immigration being one, which is a major factor in regards to knife crime! As for projecting my irrational fear, it may seem irrational to you but in Britain we don't have mass school stabbings and therefore don't feel the need to place knifes in teachers hands!
There's no jealousy, no irrational fear, no anti freedom of speech, no call for anarchy, no walking on children's graves. It's obviously extremely sad that children are murdered no matter what country they're from! But we are writing in the comments section of a vid on how to combat mass school shootings in America, and hearing stats comparing how more likely you are to die by some other means is crazy! The fact that it's being compared at all is the crazy part! Here in Britain we don't compare your chances of being stabbed with your chances of being run over. We have an issue with stabbings, and perhaps because we don't have a constitutional right to carry a knife in public we're not so quick to get defensive about the problem, each stabbing is shocking and quite fucking sad to be honest!
You can break down this argument and twist it to fit in with your narrative, it's what you might call being obtuse,and again completely miss the point! You can reply, but I won't even bother to read it, it'll probably be more defensive tosh anyway! Just ask yourself how long will it be before a teacher struggling with stress ends up shooting an angry and/or irate pupil? Or better still, how do you stop young people with a mental illness getting their hands on a gun in the first place? Pointing out the flaws in other countries is not the answer! No country is perfect, not even the US!
I am a teacher and almost any teacher I talk to about it are opposed. Putting guns in a classroom is giving an opportunity for someone to get it and create a tragedy. After all police officers get shot with their own guns all the time. Also the idea that a teacher could actually shoot the person under stress is idiotic. You need lots of training to do that, much more then 2 days!
liem11 they have to coordinate an entire classroom “under stress”. I think pretty sure they’ll be fine.
Also, students can take a teacher’s key or wallet (ie their social security number, bank information) too, but should we ban them too? The guns are usually locked up or stored in secret. They don’t just keep them lying around
Wait... Your saying that it’s idiotic that a teacher looking in the barrel of a gun could possible shoot back?
also, very risky for people of color....
id rather run thr risk of a teacher accidentally shooting a student and having her/she to protect me if have a gun man who actually wants to kill ppl walks in than not run the risk and have some gunman walk in and have no protection
@@epif1 what does race have to do with this
Prior Correctional Officer here, now Middle School Math teacher. I think staff members who come from backgrounds of law enforcement with prior weapons training should be allowed to carry, however, only with yearly safety and qualification with that specifically carried weapon.
But before arming teachers I think schools should increase difficulty of entry. Automatically locking doors to the outside of the school. Shatterproof glass with wire mesh on doors and outer windows to prevent forced entry. Perimeter cameras for early detection. And for schools with inside halls (classrooms that don't exit to the outside) emergency CS or OC genades to toss into the halls and then lock the classroom doors and cover the bottom. Those are non lethal and will not cause any permanent harm to students as well. Again that is last resort in the case a gunman has already found entry to that area. Emergency two-way Radios in each classroom. And the practice of placing children behind a line of sight from the door of the classroom. As well as stacking desks in front of the door.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Your recommendations sound needed and helpful, sadly. It would be nice to nice have to barricade children into schools like a prison facility to keep them safe, but that’s not America and we have to be practical. That same approach, however, could be applied to common sense gun control laws - especially when it comes to the availability of automatic weapons, don’t you think?
@@AboveTheNoise there is no availabilty of automatic weapons. We only have semi-auto, which is 1 round per trigger pull. While some guns 'look' militaristic, AR-15 style guns are no different than a .223 random wooden stock rifle. 1 trigger pull, 1 bullet. We already have extensive background checks nationwide. Many states have specialized ID cards. So gun control won't change anything for someone who is committed to criminal action. It will however limit law abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. What people don't understand is that police are a reactionary force and show up AFTER an incident has occured. Having armed personel is easily is biggest deterrant of possible shooters. There is no way to completely keep everyone 100% safe. Making something illegal isn't going to take it out of the hands of criminals. We know this because of our current drug laws, prior prohibition, and current bans fully auto AK47 style weapons. While I haven't seen a fully auto AK47 show up in a mass shooting in the US I can tell you that they do exist inthe US, but they exist illegally only. Our second amendment rights keep us a free people from our own government and ensure that opposing forces do not invade the US, and should not be dialed back.
@@RealEdwMrW thanks for the correction. Isn’t it true, though, that bullets from AR-15s create far more devastating and lethal injury than other types of guns - and exceed anything any reasonable human would need to defend themselves in a home invasion or any situation where exercising your 2nd Amendment rights is called for? Sounds like the kids at schools where the shooter used an AR-15 were brutally ripped apart by the bullets. I’m not saying they wouldn’t have faced lethal injuries regardless, but it’s hard to justify the need to have such brutal weapons on the market. I just imagine the parents of these kids looking at the damage from an AR-15 as they figure out how to face the most horrific situation a parent could ever imagine - and I just can’t wrap my mind around any rationale for selling a gun like that. As for the availability of an AK47 style gun - sure, where there is a will there is a way to get one - but the fact that they are illegal is surely at least partially the reason why they haven’t been used in mass shootings. Especially for these 18 year old dudes who are most often the shooters. If they could easily buy an AK47 in Walmart, don’t you think they would do it?
www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
its actually a dumb debate whether youre for or against guns there has to be millions of things creative engineers could design /create implement that would stop firearms on campuses not to mention other places where large group have to gather like clubs , sports venue , concerts . Its a job for creative thinking , not just extra guns
@@beachboardfan9544 but introducing more guns, doesn't solve the problem. People are still subject to error, and accidents are more likely to happen. It also opens up the opportunity for a school shooting if the teacher slips up
Teachers are oftentimes no more emotionally stable than students. In fact, they're placed under a great deal of stress due to the nature of their job.
I would be more receptive to the idea of more school resource officers, but arming civilian teachers in schools seems like a very bad idea to me.
They could bring a gun if they wanted to do that with or without the rules they are given, stop thinking wrong.
@@wealthiness "Stop thinking wrong"
Calm down Big Brother. We're not a dystopian society run by thought police just yet.
@@ForumArcade How did you go from teachers to a dystopian society lmao, ironically it sounds like that is what you want by removing guns from the people & letting only the authorities have them.
@@wealthiness that's a silly argument because you didn't address the issue that was originally raised nor did you provide a solution.
Let's say that a school had two resource officers, and both of them are taken down by a school shooter (or multiple shooters who collaborated to plan the attack), who will be the next line of defense after them?
I've never believed that multiple resource officers are enough because if multiple people plot to shoot up a school, and they know where these resource officers are stationed, they can easily devise a plan to pick all of them off. If the worst case scenario happens, what's next?
It's not wise to put faith in resources officers alone, and not have another line of defense IF the school shooter(s) is successfully able to subdue them -- because that is a possibility.
I don't care if people disagree with me, but I am in favor of arming trained teachers with a weapon because the criminal needs to know that there is layered protection on the campus, and if the shooter gets passed one line of defense, there is another one waiting. The shooter needs to know that if he goes into the wrong classroom, that could be his last day on Earth. To me, that is the best solution.
If your not willing to punch a person in the face when you get mad ,it's highly unlikely that you would draw your gun and shoot them in the same situation -just a thought😒 Also,these teachers would only be training for one purpose,to shoot an armed intruder when they try to enter their classroom. They don't need the same amount of training as law enforcement if they can pass a concealed carry test. They would have enough training to put up a good fight and even if they just wound the shooter they've likely saved lives because it's hard to do stuff after being shot (possibly multiple times). If you are concerned about accidents or someone stealing a gun, a quick access safe might work,but wouldn't always be ideal. A concealed weapon in a retention holster would be better,in my opinion,but does have the risk of being stolen,although that would be highly unlikely. The gun being concealed would mean out of sight out of mind for most people. Also, the lack of trust in teachers is amazing. I've known some bad teachers before but I don't think they would ever try to kill me😒 .Collateral damage in defensive shootings does happen, but it is rare. You would face a much greater risk of being killed by the person that is actually trying to kill you😌.In the end,any teachers willing to get a concealed carry permit should carry in the classroom.They have always been there to teach and protect kids. Why should that be any different in this case?☺
Great video, and I personally feel you did a great job covering the topic. I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject, but I would have made 1 thing more clear: the to-be-armed teachers are intended to be confidential, i.e. at least not known to the students. (at least as I understand it). A lot of the students interviewed in this video seemed to suggest something along the lines of 'I would feel less safe in THEIR classroom' --- well that issue, at least, could be mitigated by this confidentiality.
Couldn't that exasperate the fear? If the student is unsure as to who has a gun, then they can easily imagine that any one of their teachers has a gun.
@@Adrian-bi4cc I somewhat doubt that a confidential program intended to protect the students will draw more fear from the students (rather than direct knowledge of who is armed).
Any students that have their fears exacerbated by a confidential policy like this likely have an unsubstantiated fear (especially given that programs like this haven't been tested yet).
Again, I'm not for or against arming teachers, I just don't believe policies should be based on unsubstantiated fears of (mostly) minors.
@@danriddick914 it would draw more fear. The claim is that if an untrustworthy teacher had a gun, the student would be more afraid. In a confidentiality policy, the only change is that the student doesnt know who has the gun (not whether an untrustworthy teacher has access to a gun), which leaves room for the student to assume that it could be possessed by an untrustworthy teacher.
Morevover, even if a confidential policy hasnt been implemented yet, the policy of allowing teachers to have guns already have been. The problem and fear is that if a teacher has a gun then there is a more likely chance of an accident to occur. And in some cases, as listed in the video, there have been accidents related to the firearms already.
@Gary Winthorp They're not irrational fears, as shown in the video there have already been cases in which teachers have accidentally fired their weapon in school. Furthermore, while most teachers could be trusted, there are still problems with the power balance. If we already have cases of teachers abusing their power, i.e., sexual assault, then it is a valid critique to question whether we should introduce a more imbalanced power dynamic by giving teachers lethal weapons.
As for your analogy, im finding it hard to make the connection to my argument. I'm not advocating for extreme solutions such as removing all guns, I'm just suggesting students would be afraid if there are more guns in the school held by teachers who may not be the most trustworthy. But, I'll try to follow your analogy. It is rational to be afraid or spiders because some carry venom. To kill them all is an ineffective solution, it would be more rational to limit contact with spiders. Similar, it is somewhat rational to be worried about gun violence in school, thus wouldn't it be more understandable to try and enforce regulation that stops someone from having access to guns in the first place rather than implementing more guns into the school?
@Gary Winthorp en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000)#20th_century
It's ironic you tell me I dont think about the past or anyone else's experiences when you litterly ignore all of history that isnt a part of your experience.
Gun violence in schools have been recurrent throughout the united states history. Moreover, the conception that school shooting have been more rampant is overblown by the media. School shootings, although unfortunate, arent much more worse today than before the federal government banned weapons from school.
Furthermore, there are weapons in schools still, SRO officers carry them and as you can see in the video, some states still allowed teachers to carry guns, but yet, there are still school shootings.
Finally, your line if reasoning makes little sense. Withholding the fact that there have been shootings before and after schools got rid of guns (which they havent completely), your argument is that because there are less guns in school means there are more school shooters? The only connection between these claims is that students are always pining to shoot people up. If this were the case, wouldn't there be more mass shootings out in public areas that restrict gun access that are consistent with the volume with school shootings? Again withholding the fact that school shootings arent significantly higher today, wouldnt it be a better correlation between mental health and increased school shootings rather than a deterrent to kill people being removed and increased school shootings? More people are depressed, anxious, and suicidal than before.
Would prevent 1 in 1,000,000 problems
Would cause 5,000 in 1,000,000 problems
A major issue at Parkland was the time it took to announce a code red. Why not have alarms that indicate shootings the same way we do with fire alarms?
This is one of the best solutions I've seen
Teachers with guns sounds a lot more like a prison than a place of learning.
I don't think prison guards can have guns inside the cell block though, so it's worse.
That’s not really a good argument it’s not a prison the people with those guns are there to Protect you now when it comes to teachers with guns I am against it but I need statistics to see whether it could be a good idea or not but what I would be in favor for or what I think would be a good idea is that we have increased police presence I think that if we have arm and train people with guns like police I think that it would make a potential school shooter think twice
A school with armed teachers may seem like a prison to you, but a school without armed teachers looks like an easy target with very minimal risk to a shooter, as experience has shown.
No.
The logistics for the police alone would be a nightmare. When you have multiple active shooters (some teachers and some assailants) how will the police quickly know who is who? Police *are* going to kill some teachers because of this. Not to mention the damage to a teacher if they fire upon a gunman, miss, and kill a student. Something that *will* happen. Police have marksmen training and they still miss a fair number of their shots. I have a lot of family in the military, all with firearm training, and none of them have perfect accuracy.
Many of my teachers could barely work a projector or a VCR. If I could go back in time and be given the option to give them a gun I'd squarely say no.
This kind of question even being asked honestly makes me embarrassed to be American. Have we always been this cowardly? Was it better hidden in the past? I thought the whole idea of being American was to have courage. It seems like the only answer anymore for terrorism, domestic or foreign, is to sacrifice liberties for a facade of safety.
Maybe I'll be wrong? That would be great. I'd love for this to be the first time this solution actually worked. But I feel like at some point folks are gonna have to ask "Maybe this is all just a marketing gimmick to sell more product by capitalizing on fear."
And to be clear. I'm 33. Columbine happened when I was in Junior High. The fact that the one answer "accepted" by lawmakers was selling more firearms suggests to me that this is, and always has been, a case of protecting the firearm industry.
Not to keep people safe.
I'd be interested to see how many lawmakers would be supportive of just having reinforced doors and windows on buildings. I'm guessing that would be far less exciting because the door and window lobbies aren't involved politically.
edit: Also I gave the video a like. I'm just so disappointed that the US has failed so spectacularly all for a buck.
@@oafkad You have valid points about being shot by responding law enforcement. Personally, that's a risk i'd be willing to accept. Trust me, most military personnel are not combat veterans and receive what would be considered 'firearm familiarization' or qualification training. They don't teach cooks and mechanics how to clear buildings or assault beaches. FYI - most cops aren't 'gun people'. They chose not to be. Guns are only one facet of their job.
Those of us who take marksmanship seriously, pay for training out of our own pocket or compete in action firearm sports.
I agree, install better windows & doors. Better yet, build safe rooms and issue body armor w/trauma kits. And train everyone. But I believe in defense in depth. There are sprinkler systems installed in every room of a school but there are still fire extinguishers available, just in case... Give the teacher options. Freedom of choice. Their choice.
Last but not least, gun control is the epitome of "sacrifice liberties for a facade of safety".
The answer is a very obvious yes
No!
I think it *could* be safer. BUT, like background checks for getting a gun in the first place, plans don't always turn out how we plan. Ideally no one that doesn't need/isn't safe enough with a gun could get one, but clearly isn't the case. So I'm not apposed to the idea, but things need to proceed with extreme caution.
Whats with those in favour calling them firearms, and those against calling them guns?
Because those in favor of them feel like lording the terminology over those who are against them demonstrates how those who are against them don't actually know what they're talking about.
It's the same sort of nonsense like how because the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" had no definite meaning that they get triggered when people talk about an assault weapon ban. And while there is certainly a lot of confusing and contradictory laws about firearms, anyone who get hung up on the semantics isn't acting in good faith anyway.
Because a “gun” usually refers to artillery whereas “weapon” or “firearm” refers to the rifle, handgun, or shotgun. This depends on your background though; specifically this is for Military or ex-military.
Speaking of statistics, how many teachers have un-alived a student in the last 100 years? As a civilian, I train over a dozen hours every week with my firearms. As a teacher, I am looking to move to a state that allows me to concealed carry in school, so I know I can protect my little ones. It's called concealed carry for a reason, so students worried about seeing a teacher open carry is a non-issue. We don't all need to carry, but it would greatly reduce school shootings if schools weren't "soft targets" for the bad guys. At the elementary school level, we have no security, and one teacher's carelessness like forgetting to lock a gate or door could cost myself and my students our lives. I regularly see teaching assistant's letting anyone into my elementary school. I agree we should have a few hundred hours of training, but I know some of us would gladly train to concealed carry in the classroom. If I'm putting in 10-20 hours a week training with my firearms anyway, time to train isn't an issue. If you care about your students as much as many teachers like myself do, we would take a bullet for our kiddos. We shouldn't be forced to be human shields though.
Of course we know teachers stand a better chance if they had guns. But what we're proposing is that politicians need to work harder on preventing the gunman easy access to firearms in the first place.
Fun fact if you’re parent owns a gun you are more protected than someone with out a gun
@@JorgeRodriguez-mr8nz fact: children in a household with guns are more likely to get shot than children not around guns. And it doesn't have to be their own parents. It can be their friend's parents so just because you don't own guns doesn't always mean your children are safer if they go over friends homes
@@ProtectChildrenNotGuns false it is actually a lie made by anti gunners
@@JorgeRodriguez-mr8nz it's a statistical fact, pro gunners, refuse to believe
How can there already be likes and dislikes like you can not even have watched the entire video. You can not make a judgment if you have not watch whole video.
We agree. It's a pretty controversial topic, so we get why people have "trigger" reactions -- but we think it's definitely worth watching the whole video before taking a stand on the issue.
@@AboveTheNoise I haven't voted yet but I haven't seen a single bad video from ATN. So I would be that kind of person who likes the video up front.
@@PunkHerr Aw shucks! Thanks for the support!
@@AboveTheNoise sorry but what does „aw shucks“ mean? I come from Germany so I am not familiar with slang ^^“
@@PunkHerr Haha! It's like an old-timey thing people say to indicate appreciation and humility. It's kinda like blushing when someone gives you a compliment 😀
Being struck by lightning is the same sort of "even though the reality is that they are pretty rare, but they do happen, and when it happens it's tragic and horrible". Schools seem to be able to handle that with procedural solutions like "bring PE inside when there is lightning". When you ask students about school shootings, do you also ask them about lightning? If not you're pressing your "anti-gun/pro-lightning" agenda. Seriously, it seems like procedural solutions like locking doors are the more cost effective solution than waiting until the 2nd amendment gets revised (talk to some old ERA supporters, hint - they are old because it's a super-not-quick process).
Teachers with guns are a super-low-probability solution. Even among police officers, who's job is to drive to places where crimes are being committed or criminals can be found, only 27% of them every fire their gun during their entire police career. Teachers are just never going to get to use their firearm.
@Gary Winthorp You actually can tell them to leave their guns out of school, they can carry in other places that are not full of children. It's like asking people to leave their guns off a plane, even though it restricts their "natural" right and no one is armed to deter those crazy terrorists with a death wish (like those people can be deterred with the threat of dying).
3.2 million people in high stress job position, with guns. What could possibly go wrong. There were 113 people killed or injured in 2018 in school shootings. But if you give 3 million stressed-out underpaid people a gun, I think you can only expect to move this into thousands a year.
You handled the topic so well. The cons would be a budding school shooter deciding to overpower his teacher one day. Pro would be if weapons are concealed and not disclosed to students who had a gun, a school shooter may be less inclined to enter a building where he may come across somebody armed. I think it’s best to have armed guards at all school hours. This is normal in many countries. It could do wonders for veteran unemployment. If veterans are well screened and selected and don’t have sociopathic tendencies or active substance use they would be great at this job and I would trust them.
Arming teachers... next is putting armed guards at every entrance and having the school on constant lock down... it's a police state. Sad... gun control doesn't mean no guns for anyone it means it is harder to get one. And if the teacher doesn't react everyone will blame the teacher for the shooting... it's a slippery slope ... but I see your point
I would say that well equipped school entrance and compus is a best solution. If you merge AI and a bunch of infrared (ir) and far infrared (fir) cameras, no gunman would be able to enter a school. But yeah, it would cost a school few thousand bucks. We cannot afford it.
"There have been shootings on military bases where lots of people are armed". Not true, only Security forces and Law Enforcement personnel can carry a firearm on a military base. Even with a State Concealed Carry permit, I cannot carry a firearm on the military base as an active duty military member. Your comment is incorrect and creates a wrongful belief that many armed people does not reduce the chances of an active shooter. I cannot remember an active shooter incident inside a gun show or at a police department. Criminal shooters purposely avoid areas where many people are armed, that is just a fact.
The student in Salt Lake doesn't understand the term "concealed carry". LOL
I just graduated 12th grade. Arming teachers wouldn't make us any safer and would make it harder to learn. If politicians really want to make us safer, they should establish stronger universal background checks and mandatory gun licencing. Banning rapid-fire assault weapons and high capacity magazines also wouldn't hurt.
We haven't been allow full autos since the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994. In California, the highest capacity magazine I have seen for an AR-15 is a ten round. How do you propose a stronger universal background check? Mandatory gun licencing you say? Wouldn't the licensing be redundant on top of the stronger background checks? Depending on the teacher, I agree with you as I have just graduated 8th grade. I am curious, why do you think it is harder to learn within the presence of a firearm?
@@henryyin2471 he most likely has never been around them most of the anti gun crowd haven't and people fear what they do not know
I would say I fall on the side of more and stricter laws regarding gun control. I personally think that it's not worth it, because that statistic is realistically very small. I may be irrationally worried about what would happen in that circumstance, but I understand that it is not likely at all. However, I feel like I could possibly be swayed. Although it makes me uncomfortable to have a gun in that vicinity, I live in a rural area. I'm almost certain that some teachers have guns in their cars and SROs at the school carry them too. Because we have SROs ( school resource officers) I don't think it is necessary.
Gun laws are very much not effective when it comes to stopping a school shooting, many of these shooters obtained their guns illegally
When you double down on gun control you only double down on law abiding citizens not on criminals who would actually commit these crimes
I say we need more security guards that are armed and a teacher can carry, but they have to get a background check
I think is would be fine for mental evaluated, trained, outstanding teachers whom are willing to put themselves on the line to carry personal fire arms.
Turning teachers into police may not be the best optimization of resources though. Just station police within the school. Though for rural schools I can definitely see this as a viable alternative.
the newtown shooter (an honour student) was the son of one of the teachers who he killed/ despite any training the teacher (his mom) had, she lost her life and allowed him the opportunity to use her weapons to kill other kids. that is something to chew on. this would be a good time to review cases like this and how they could have been prevented regardless of those promoting guns or not. #gunreform
Hi Greg, The motive that the Sandy Hook shooter had any links to the elementary school (including his mother being a teacher there) was proved false. The only thing we know about Lanza's mother is that she was a gun enthusiast. Despite the lack of connection, his mother's enthusiasm for guns supported the incident, no doubt.
they should not be because then the player is going to steal it from the teacher
If more school teachers were armed around the country we should expect the number of gun-related deaths and injuries in schools to increase. Whether armed teachers cause more harm than they prevent is unfortunately unknown until more data becomes available. But I reckon teachers with firearms is not going to solve the problem. It’s a vast and complex issue but I think focusing on mental health should be the starting point. People with poor mental health need help. We need better neuroscience tech too, such as methods that could better detect the type of brain that’s prone to committing these acts.
Gary Winthorp Are you saying we should expect the number of injuries and deaths to decrease if more teachers were armed?
Gary Winthorp Not trying to start a false debate; just trying to understand what you’re saying. I think your argument makes sense, but it still hasn’t really been thoroughly tested, and I’m not sure it even can be. Arming teachers is currently an experiment taking place in just a few states. It seems to me that it will take many years and many more incidents before we can say with some degree of certainty whether arming teachers is helpful or harmful.
teachers arent being paid enough to teach qudratic formula and be in a swot
my thoughts exactly
You realize they volunteer right? They aren’t forced into it
Only way this works is if all teacher carry and train with those firearms regularly.
You don’t think it’s asking a lot of teachers to add gun handling and safety training to the long list of things they are asked to do to take care of our children? Should our society focus on some other solutions first before requiring this additional burden of educators? Unless, of course, Americans can universally support investing more of their taxpayer dollars into this training. And recruiting folks to the profession who would willingly sign up for being responsible for wielding weapons.
Why do you not have more subscribers and how did I not find this channel sooner
We ask ourselves that question a lot. But we’re grateful for the subscribers we do have and folks like you who discover us and support us!
Another viewpoint that I think is interesting to listen to is the viewpoint of foreigners who haven't grown and thus do not share the same culture. I am not from the US myself and really it seems really foolish for us to have teachers carrying guns (like again not the same culture no intentional disrespect). We really think that guns just should be banned (except for a few exeptions like for hunting or stuff like that and that is still regulated quite a lot). And if they were banned then there wouldn't be any school shootings
But in those countries you can't defend yourself. If some criminal attacks you, your only choice is to call cops and hope that they come early.
@@rajashashankgutta4334 but since criminals don't have guns either, you can defend yourself without one (criminals are also probably less confidant about themselves without a gun and so they will attack you less)
Teachers shouldn't be conceal carrying guns because school shootings don't happen often enough to justify that. Instead teachers who opt into armament programs should store their guns in a safe within the classroom, and they're only allowed to access it during times of need
What if the gunman shoots you while your opening the safe? What if you forget the combination to the safe?
If there is mentally insane teachers, over 50 years, millions of teachers, you dont think there will ever be incidents
If you are scared that your teacher will shoot their gun, you must be a very bad student.
This is a ridiculous fucking statement, and you should feel embarrassed for making it.
Could you imagine a teacher having a gun in the classroom.......I've always said that when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
nah bro, i feel like the teacher be pullin out the gun on the students, rather than the shooter.
But you know, if the chill teacher had the gun, then he be acting like its world war 2, letting students play Call of Duty you know.
All I heard was conjectural weak arguments when compared to the potential cost of such a threat against others.
How to stop school shootings: Treat the cause, not the symptoms. Stop trying to stop an active shooter, because if you get to the point where someone wants to shoot up the school, something seriously wrong happened already. Most shootings start the same way; Mentally ill students get bullied and denied help, and neglectful, irresponsible parents. Stopping any of those would prevent the massacre entirely. Heavily discourage bullying, establish good communication with the students and parents, and give them help if they need it. Instead of making schools seem like prisons, we need to restore the teachers’ bonds with their students.
I'm sorry, but no matter how many stop gaps are put in place, you can't force what happens at home until criminal charges can be placed on parents, which is incredibly hard in the US (by the way I am a full spectrum teacher [multiple gen. Ed and special Ed. License]). As a sceince teacher, at the moment I have a copper pipe that would be the defense for my class, as compared to having a 22 caliber concealed. So if I have prior notice I could do more damage compared to the concealed carry, ya know if I knew.
How many times does this guy raise his eyebrow?
Here’s what we should do we should have increased police presence and programs were retired police and retired military can patrol the school
wow I can not believe it
Yes.
What sort of weapons 😳 snub nose 38, or M16 ? Where does it stop. What if a teacher is disarmed and that person starts killing people with it ?
why even bother watching the video?
YES
The odds of a firearm being successfully used in self defense (or the defense of someone) are vanishingly small compared to the accidental or improper discharge of the firearm. Therefore, the correct answer is to not bother with them. This is one of the cases where it is better to need and not have than to have and not need; usually it is the other way around with it being better to have and not need than to need and not have, like a calculator in a math exam or physics exam.
Reporting problem
A small chance of my kid surviving a shooting because their teacher had a gun is much better a 0 chance of them surviving because their teacher didn't.
Uuuhhhh...Yeah......any teacher willing to train and carry
The facts dont care about your feelings. Even if you would "feel" less safe. Would you actually be less safe?
I think teachers should have the choice but if they choose it they need to undergo training and the gun needs to be concealed carry by the teacher.
If i was a student at a school when a mass shooting occured i would much rather be in the classroom where atleast someone is armed and trained to take down a threat than the classroom where we are hiding like sitting ducks with no defense.
Its a sad state of affairs when this discussion even needs to happen.
kudos,kudos,kudos
Yes
Of course it would make schools safer. Mass shootings occur in "gun-free" zones. I have carried concealed for over 10 years, and no one has ever noticed my weapon.
Arm teachers or get armed guards, I don't care. Our schools should be fortresses, not barrels of fish.
I'm here because Physics Girl sent me. Cool video. Subscribed
That is a really good point brought up earlier, rural towns and schools where law enforcement could be far away. It would make some scence to have an trained, certified, individual with acess to a firearm if the police are >20 minutes away from a school (the 2017 Las Vegas shooting took place over only 10 minutes and led to 58 deaths, and over 400 injuries). It makes me as a New Zealander understand why such a proposal would be so popular and accepted in the U.S.
But I think a lot of the media discussion around Mass shootings largely disregards the systemic problem of access to firearms, individuals would not commit mass shootings if they didn't have access to firearms. Gun accesability are so accessable to the general population of the U.S people is a huge factor as to why shootings happen. Individuals can buy guns at Walmart, which has over 4600 stores across the U.S (this is particularly absurd to me) and that the current background check system is not fully universal (gun shows and unliscenced trades allow for people to gain firearms without regristration), comprehensive, or effective. I think the discussion around gun violence and mass shooitngs needs to acknowledge the larger systemic factors, which effective, reliable, democratic governments should be able to fix.
No bscuass they would make us try to answer the question
Doing this only makes the problem worse, if there is psychological counseling it is not doing its job. Make schools look like prisons, do not allow for dialogue or freedom
America?
we protect our money with armed guards. we keep prisoners in prison with arm guards. we protect government sensitive information with armed guards. but we cant protect our children, our future, with armed guards?
instead of arming teachers, why cant we set up a budget to hire professional arm guards to protect our children? and no im not talking about local police or sheriffs or security guards that would be too afraid to rush into an active school shooting. im talking about private military trained security.
sure the budget will be through the roof, but how much are we spending on feeding criminals who crosses our boarder illegally every month through welfare and foodstamps? are our children not more important?
Students trust their teacher's, you really think they're going to trust some rando with a gun? Who would you trust more, someone with a gun whom you and your kid have never seen before or someone with a gun that your kid talks to almost everyday of the week?
“The training we do in two days with the teachers is more intense than any training i ever did in 20 years of law enforcement.” This is extremely alarming...
Teachers don’t sign up for this
Yup some rinky dink pistol is going to stop a full auto rifle just better gun rules you dont need a ar15 to hunt bolt guns or single shot rifles take time and skill to use and are fair to animals unlike a fully auto spray of bullets
Teachers should not only be trained in arms but check their mental health background as well. Adults are not perfect, we all have issues.
Escalation of violence is my concern, if a teacher is involved in a fight opens fire, that is much worse than a normal fight.
@Gary Winthorp Not a concern? Guns typically make a non lethal situation lethal.
@Gary Winthorp Grammar good, kiddo?
@Gary Winthorp Just proofread next time before you talk down to someone, think you can manage that?
@Gary Winthorp I don't have to tell you what my education status is, that matters about as much as grammar. If you really think teachers don't see fights, or ever get involved in a fight, I think that is questionable. But what is really remarkable to me is that you agreed that the guns could make these scenarios more deadly, but then just brushed it off like oh so what?
@Gary Winthorp Well I suppose first hand experience counts for something, but I think that someone who has never gone to high school like someone home schooled could still have an informed opinion about this topic. And in all honesty, we are really irrationally afraid of school shootings, while those in the event should be scared, they are exceptionally rare. Rationally one would think that if a system resulted in more lives lost than it saved, it would be worthless. Some kids aren't afraid of guns, play with them when they don't know what they are doing, and die. That is a different issue, but a little fear goes a long way.
I don’t know if it’s a good idea because maybe they would abuse it and threaten other students besides that it would be a good idea
when I hear, this kind of things in USA is laws or even topic of conversation.
I feel getting brain damage, and lost IQ by losing neurons.
why you should have gun in first place?
Oh god my head.
You have a gun in the first place to prevent crazy people with guns from killing people. Haven't you heard the term, "brought a knife to a gun fight."
Teachers and guns dont mix. Teachers want to educate and teach. Help the population by teaching not turn around to kill. This government is insane! I'm a teacher who went from selling guns to changing my mind when I heard my sales job caused death of another human. I sold to gun dealers working for nationwide sports. Quit , got a new career as headstart teacher. Now this!I'm beyond sick. This generation has no hope. So sad to see these people giving up and acting like this is the wild west. 2 amendment was the genocide of my people. Now it's normal to kill in America.
This all depends on perspective. I am trained to own and operate firearms efficiently and effectively, and I perceive them as tool, not a weapon. So to me, it would be the equivalent of having a teacher armed with a pair of scissors, except the gun provides a much better means of defense against someone else with a gun.
Our society has been sheltered from ever having to be exposed to guns and violence, so the threat of it happening to them overshadows the ability to find a sound solution to the issue. This would not have been so controversial 100 years ago. So why is it now? Because we have endured an extended period of peace, which means younger generations are becoming more afraid of triggers than the act of violence itself.
Protecting students by arming teachers is a threat to black students?! - GIVE ME A BREAK!
When this Presentation dropped into conjectural fear, I dialed out.
Quick answer: yes. wayyyy safer.
No.
They should just ban military level weapons and make access to firearms harder
That’s already happened. All automatic military weapons have been banned.
No, No, No. We currently have a problem in the USA with police officers killing people in their own homes and this killings disproportionately impacts people of color. AND, they are being committed by the people that we as a society have deemed as "guardians" of our society. Part of the problem is that many officers are being trained in a "warrior" mentality; where they see the general public as "sheep", the "bad guys" as "wolves" and themselves as "sheep dogs". This condescending perspective fails to take into consideration many things as background, mental health status, etc. and fails, most importantly, because instead of seeing their relationship to the community as a partnership to keep ourselves safe; it is a task to keep the "sheep" safe. it automatically creates an "us" vs. "them". And now you want to introduce teachers into the mix?!? People of color with carry permits are already being killed in routine traffic stops by officers, how many teachers of color do you think would be willing to participate in this program, knowing that they would instantly be viewed as the enemy! so that would leave mostly white teachers. And as this video showed, only white students said they would feel "safe" if their teacher carried a weapon. Because they identify with their own group! Also, in Florida (dang it Florida!) Republican lawmakers pushed the bill introduced by DeSantis, despite criticism from teachers, gun safety groups and several law enforcement agencies. so, most definitely HECK NO!!!
Arming Teachers Introduces New Risks Into Schools
Seeking a response to the tragedy of school shootings, legislators in some states have eschewed proven solutions that approach the problem from every angle and have been seduced by the risky and false idea that arming teachers and school staff will make our schools safe. In fact, an armed teacher cannot, in a moment of extreme duress and confusion, be expected to transform into a specially trained law enforcement officer. An armed teacher is much more likely to shoot a student bystander or be shot by responding law enforcement than to be an effective solution to an active shooter in a school.
Our leaders should instead pursue an evidence-based intervention plan that addresses what we know about school gun violence. For more information about evidence-based school safety solutions, visit: everytownresearch.org/school-safety
KEY POINTS
A March 2018 survey of almost 500 U.S. teachers found that 73 percent oppose proposals to arm school staff.
Another survey found that 63 percent of parents of elementary, middle, and high school students oppose arming teachers.
Introduction
Arming teachers is opposed by school safety experts like law enforcement, and teachers and parents.
The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association are the nation’s two largest teachers’ organizations representing millions of educators and staff. They oppose arming teachers.
The National Association of School Resource Officers strongly opposes proposals to arm teachers due to the risk it would pose to law enforcement, students and the school community, as well as the risks to the armed teachers themselves.
The President and Executive Director of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represents 75 police forces from large cities in the USA and Canada, both agree that arming teachers is “not a good idea.”
“The more guns that are coming into the equation, the more volatility and the more risk there is of somebody getting hurt.”
J. Thomas Manger, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association
The notion of a highly trained teacher armed with a gun is a myth.
Law enforcement officers receive an average of 840 hours of basic training including 168 hours of training on weapons, self-defense, and the use of force. In states that have laws aimed at arming school personnel, school staff receive significantly less training. In some of these states there is no minimum training required at all.
Even some of the most highly trained law enforcement officers in the country, those of the New York City Police Department, see their ability to shoot accurately decrease significantly when engaged in gunfights with perpetrators.
Key Findings
1. Students will access teachers’ guns.
Research strongly supports the idea that children will access guns when guns are present.
One study showed that the majority of children are aware of where their parents store their guns. In fact, more than one third of those children reported handling their parents’ guns, many doing so without the knowledge of their parents. Nearly a quarter of parents did not know that their children had handled the gun in their house.
There have been numerous incidents where guns carried into schools were misplaced - guns left in bathrooms, locker rooms, sporting events, even an incident where a gun fell out while a teacher did a backflip.
There are also multiple incidents where guns were stolen from teachers by students, or cases where guns were misplaced and later found in the hands of students.
2. The risk of shootings increases.
Access to a firearm, irrespective of age, triples the risk of death by suicide and doubles the risk of death by homicide.
There have been several incidents of guns intentionally or unintentionally discharged on school grounds by school staff. This includes both intentional and unintentional shootings such as:
A janitor who killed two of his colleagues at a performing arts school in Florida.
A Spanish teacher who was fired and then returned to school with an AK-47 in a guitar case that he used to kill the school headmaster and then himself.
Firearm suicides by faculty or staff at schools.
Unintentional incidents, by both school resource officers in schools and teachers who accidentally discharged their firearms.
3. Arming teachers introduces new liability risks.
When several districts in Kansas sought to arm teachers, the insurance companies informed them that they would not insure such a dangerous practice.
School policies may expose teachers to criminal liability in the event policies are not consistent with state law. It is also unlikely that insurance companies would indemnify schools from monetary claims in these cases.
State immunity laws cannot exempt schools from all legal liability, particularly federal civil rights liability. 4. Armed staff complicate law enforcement's response
Responding to an active shooter incident can be complex. Reports and analysis of mass shootings continually show communication errors, narrowly avoided friendly-fire incidents, and a lack of coordination during responses to active shooter incidents. To introduce a new variable-armed teachers-into this equation would serve only to further complicate law enforcement’s response to active shooter incidents. As former Dallas Police Chief David Brown said following the shooting of five law enforcement officers in Dallas where the response was complicated by people openly carrying firearms, “We don’t know who the good guy is versus who the bad guy is if everyone starts shooting. 5. Liability and insurance
Insurance companies are hesitant to insure schools that arm teachers or staff because they understand the financial and legal risks associated with doing so. When several districts in Kansas sought to arm teachers, the insurance companies informed them that they would not insure such a dangerous practice. Even where schools are able to obtain insurance, it is often at a higher premium.This is because insurance companies realize that guns carried by teachers pose numerous safety risks.
Schools that have or are considering arming teachers and staff continue to put remarkably little thought into the legal liability they incur by doing so. These policies, which are often developed behind closed doors, are frequently poorly drafted and inadequately vetted. This leaves teachers and school districts legally exposed. Not only may they be civilly liable, but teachers who carry guns on the basis of a school policy may also expose themselves to criminal liability if the policy is in any way inconsistent with state law. Assuming there is an inconsistency, it is also unlikely that a school’s insurance policy would indemnify the school from monetary claims. Further, even if the policy is crafted with legal precision, the likelihood that a school district, school, or teacher will be sued if a student or another person is hurt by an armed teacher is high.
Some states have sought to address this by specifically immunizing armed teachers or staff from liability claims or by arguing that existing school immunity provisions bar claims against them or cap the amount of damages that they would be liable for. In fact, these provisions do not operate as a complete bar to lawsuits. States also cannot exempt schools from federal civil rights liability. Schools can and will be sued in federal court and they will not be able to use state immunity provisions to protect themselves from claims. 6.The notion that only highly trained teachers will be carrying guns in schools is a myth. Law enforcement personnel who carry guns on a daily basis receive hundreds of hours of initial training and are generally required to continue their training throughout their careers. The average number of initial training hours that a law enforcement officer receives at a basic-training academy is 840. On average, recruits receive 168 hours of training on weapons, self-defense, and the use of force.
In the 10 states that have laws that are designed to allow for armed school personnel, those armed personnel receive significantly less training. The laws vary widely, but not a single one of them requires teachers or school staff to undergo training that is akin to that completed by a full-time law enforcement officer. In fact, some of the states don’t have any minimum hourly training requirement at all. For example, in Kansas, school districts are free to set their own policy to allow staff to carry guns. There is no required minimum training. The same is true in Georgia, where the law provides that armed school personnel must be trained but does not require them to meet any minimum number of training hours. Several school districts across the country are exploiting vagaries in the law to arm teachers, with no state oversight. For example, a gap in Texas law led to the establishment of programs commonly known as “Guardian” programs. These programs let school districts set their own policy on what qualifications and training is required for armed teachers and staff, without any required minimum training. (See Appendix B. to learn more about Florida’s failed experiment with the Guardian program.)
Even some of the most highly trained law enforcement officers in the country, those of the New York City Police Department, see their ability to shoot accurately decrease significantly when engaged in gunfights with perpetrators. To expect a teacher to make split-second, life-or-death decisions to protect children and themselves or try to take down an active shooter is unrealistic.
Damn, this is a well put together and well researched comment.
Yes