Tweet
These two stories are real signs of the screwed-up times.
Boy, this is a bad idea on so many levels – teachers are already in high-stress positions — imagine dealing with middle-school-age, hormone-racing kids all day for one thing. Add on the responsibility of being in charge of your firearm, to keep it safeguarded yet accessible on the chance someone is going to come in randomly guns-ablazing? It sounds like a recipe for disaster to me, but apparently we’ve got states ready to go forward with this “plan” to address gun massacres in schools. (Think Progress):
In Ohio, the Buckeye Firearms Foundation, along with a group called the Tactical Defense Institute, is crafting a curriculum specifically designed for teachers and school staff. A local Fox affiliate has details on who is signing up– they report that more than one third of the applicants are women, and that “more than half of the applicants work in high schools”:
As of Wednesday, the Armed Teacher Training Program has attracted more than 600 applicants from several states including Ohio, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and West Virginia.
…“No one will be forced to be armed if they choose not to. The strategy is the same as ordinary concealed carry. No one will ever know who is or is not armed. Those who seek to do harm in schools should be met with armed resistance, even before law enforcement shows up. Over time, schools will no longer be considered easy, risk-free targets.”
Some reax from my Facebook page:
But if you’re concerned that your kids may get caught in the crossfire, how about sending them off to school with right-sized bullet proof clothing! Miguel Caballero’s garment business in Bogota, Colombia is producing them. Carolina Ballesteros, director of research and development explained that the bulletproof togs are not designed for everyday use — teachers are to hand them out when needed (hmm, if a gunman blasts in, will there be enough time to “suit up”?):
The new line is tailored for kids aged 8 to 16, with prices ranging from $200 to $400, depending on the garment and its size.
…The company makes uniforms for security forces and suits for public figures in many countries, she said.
“Three royal families in the Middle East are customers of ours. We made a bullet-proof kimono for the American actor Steven Seagal. Our experience is beyond question,” Ballesteros said.
In other gun life in America news, a study (PDF) on the impact of “Stand Your Ground” laws on homicide rates (imagine all kinds of awful scenarios with armed teachers in classrooms when the predictable tragedy occurs) reveals interesting stats. Shankar Vedantam and David Schultz report at NPR:
“These laws lower the cost of using lethal force,” says Mark Hoekstra, an economist with Texas A&M University who examined stand your ground laws. “Our study finds that, as a result, you get more of it.” As to whether the laws reduce crime — by creating a deterrence for criminals — he says, “we find no evidence of any deterrence effect over that same time period.”
Hoekstra obtained this result by comparing the homicide rate in states before and after they passed the laws. He also compared states with the laws to states without the laws.
“We find that there are 500 to 700 more homicides per year across the 23 states as a result of the laws,” he said. There are about 14,000 homicides annually in the United States as a whole.
The fact that more people are being killed doesn’t automatically mean the law isn’t working. Hoekstra says there are at least three possible explanations.
“It could be that these are self-defense killings,” he said. “On the other hand, the increase could be driven by an escalation of violence by criminals. Or it could be an escalation of violence in otherwise nonviolent situations.”
Homicides go up when you, the gun owner, feel that you’re the “good guy” using it against the “bad guy.” The problem is that the other guy also thinks they are the “good guy” and you’re the threat. And apparently it’s easier under “Stand Your Ground” to feel justified in using deadly force rather than say, deciding to enter into a fistfight.
Ah, yes, American instant gratification to end annoyances like the jerk in front of you at Little Caesars who’s complaining on the wait for his pizza by shooting the jackwad. How do we 1) get the focus on this cultural acceptance of lethal violence as near-first resort to conflict resolution and escalating tempers, and 2) stop this pathetic meme that if everyone is armed (with nearly zero regulation as the NRA suggests) we’ll all be safer.
Teachers, schools and school districts — are you ready for the other bit of contemporary-Americana – liability and litigation?
11 Comments
hmmm well well. BigGun & BigAmmo: CHA-CHING!!!!
On New Year’s eve there was a shoot-out in a bar in Old Sacramento that resulted in two dead, plus three wounded. One of the wounded was an armed security guard who did apparently wound (and stop) the shooter, but not before 2 innocent bystanders got killed & one got injured.
Well I suppose ARA/BigGun would say: the shooter woulda kilt MOAR innocents if the security guard had not been there to shoot away. That’s possible, but duly noted; the shooter was stopped by a trained security guard, not some random “citizen” who just happened to be packing heat.
And therein lies the problem with the idea of supposedly random teahers packing heat in their desks. Who knows whether they’ll have skills, nerves, reflexes, ongoing training & practice, etc, to do any good… or will it end up being more harmful for all concerned??
Sheesh. Nutty.
Demoralizing.
Lesson 1: America is not a society, but a savagery.
The most troubling part of this…? “No one will ever know who is or is not armed”.
Seems to me that I should have some sort of right as a teacher to know which co-workers within my workplace are armed/not, and then I could use that information to make an informed decision regarding whether or not I continue working there.
This can’t be true… because all the gun-a-ganda says that shooters only go where guns are not allowed. Surely the mere presence of an armed guard in Old Sacto would prevent any self-respecting criminal from doing badness, just as armed teachers will surely do.
I am not anti gun, nor do I shriek in alarm at the prospect of armed people. I don’t think armed teachers is a good thing though. For one thing, many people are probably just not cut out for a gun fight. Gun fights are kind of a big deal. Second, most teachers have no background at all in the military or police or even sport hunting. Most teachers are women who specialize in working with minors and teaching reading or math. Attempting to turn teachers into an armed force individually capable of responding to surprise attack by a homicidal maniac is probably a pretty stupid idea.
Finally, adding more guns to schools merely increases the rate at whichbshots will be fired in schools.
I am not antigun, but I think these armed teacher programs are really stupid.
I have a better idea: why don’t we replace school houses with prison compounds that have armed guards, high security entries, lockdowns during class periods, and solitary confinement for bad behavior? That will bring major contracts to the private prison builders and security companies (Michael Chertoff, here’s an opening for you). Let’s put it under the control of DHS! /s
Well, here’s hoping that the armed school teachers are better at taking on a gunman that shot 3 police officers in NJ – inside their police station – then the police officers were.
And, in this situation, the gunman started out UNARMED AND IN HANDCUFFS. Now, your typical teacher won’t be facing that scenario….. and won’t have other police officers to come as backup. And, likely won’t have protective gear on them at the time of the mass shooting. That gear saved their lives.
story here:
http://news.yahoo.com/three-jersey-police-officers-shot-134330961.html
The idiotic fantasy that a regular citizen with a regular weapon can stop a surprise shooter with automatic weapons is just an idiotic fantasy.
Does that mean the teachers in Wisconsin will be exempt from the new union busting laws once they’re armed like the police?
This is simple math people.
Genius in a way.
Wait till the first teacher shoots a student, armed or unarmed.
The fallout will be … epic.
Think about it. Kill two birds with one stone.
First the kids will always be afraid not knowing who’s packing, but a teacher probably is. No way to know. One kid talks back (ya I know, kids challenging authority, … who would have thunk), and wham, bam, thank you.
Schools will become a battleground.
Students will always be afraid.
Parents will always be afraid.
Options?
Oh ya, that new private school, that happens to perform as well or even worse, will have private security and the teachers won’t be armed. So send the kids there for actual education. Sure they may be on par with regular schools or even worse, but at least the teachers aren’t packing. One bird.
These teachers are shooting their profession in the head … and they literally don’t know any better. And the public schools will be gutted and the private schools will rise permanently. Bird numero deux.
Check and mate.
Dawg loves the the infantry.
Any fool can see that more guns means less shooting.