Sometimes you can see the future, and you wonder why nobody else can. Or maybe lots of other people can in fact see the future, but don’t say anything about it. In this case, it’s kind of scary, but mostly dumb.
A certain Texan school district has “wisely” decided that they will start the new term allowing teachers to carry concealed firearms in the classroom. The reasoning is that teachers are the best line of defence for students in case there are any gun attacks on campus. The money quote here is this one from the disctrict superintendent:
“When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that’s when all of these shootings started…”
Um, ya. If anybody here is in touch with reality, raise your hand? More guns in the classroom is definitely the answer to this rash of shootings in schools. In fact, it’s basically an arms race between the teachers and students, and by gum if the teachers don’t win it, what will you have? Anarchy I say! Just in time for the new school year: Staedtler Automatic Assault Rifles, now in three cool colours!
What the living heck is going on in Texas? I will make a small prediction here, if I may (and it’s my blog, so I may): In the next 10 years, there will be a(n even more) complete dissolution of trust between teachers and the students, to the point where there will not be teachers actually in the classrooms with the students, but will instead be teaching via a monitor, screen, or maybe just behind a scratched, scarred bulletproof glass, dotted with spitballs. Or maybe we will develop “teaching suits” for the teachers to wear, like armoured Robocops stomping around between the desks, gunfire ricocheting off their armored heads every time they turn their back. ”Timmy, I know the sound of a Glock when I hear it, I know that was you. If you shoot me in the head one more time, I’m going to, um, ask you to stop shooting me again.”
Ok, look you can’t teach when kids bring guns to class, that’s for sure. The problem isn’t going to be solved by the teachers packing heat, either. You have to address this kind of rampant pro-gun mentality over time, public relations campaigns, laws, and for pete’s sake make it harder to buy a gun than just getting it tossed into your shopping bag as a bonus. You have to find a way to remove guns from the everyday urban landscape before this issue will fix itself.
Am I crazy here?
Thanks to Wilson for setting me off on this one.
Popularity: 4%
How do more gun laws help remedy the gun violence situation? The “lawless” pay no attention to the gun laws we have now. Only the law abiding citizen will be hindered by more gun laws.
Am I crazy here?
Well…if the shoe fits.
Lets recap all of the hard facts presented (in contrast to emotionalized hyperbole and patent bigotry) in support of your position:
…
Well. There you go. Pretty convincing huh?
The “gun free-zone” thing’s been tried. Hasn’t worked out all that well. Hats off to a school system that’s willing to admit the failure of past policies and try something different.
BTW: I’ll be looking for your “I guess I need to eat crow” post in ten years when your ridiculous predictions fail to be fulfilled.
Hey guys, thanks for the comments. This kind of thing usually strikes a chord with people, except that my post was written mostly with world-weary sarcasm in mind. Hence the tongue-in-cheek Robocop prediction thing.
Mickey, while I don’t think that gun laws alone will solve this issue, I do think that the right laws can play a role in limiting the kind of guns that end up in Dad’s closet.
Sailorcurt, as for the hard facts that support my position, I presented none. Similarly, you presented no hard facts that support your position. Isn’t the Internet wonderful? My revelation was simply to point out that if there are no guns present, nobody gets shot.
if there are no guns present, nobody gets shot.
Ahh…and therein lies the problem: When a crazed gunman shows up at the school, by definition, there IS a gun present.
As demonstrated at Columbine, Virginia Tech and any number of other incidents, in that case, someone’s very likely going to get shot. What you are proposing is that the ONLY gun present be the one in possession of the crazed gunman and that the ONLY people getting shot are the innocents. As I said before: been there, done that. Didn’t work out all that well for the innocents.
I’m not the one who forwarded the premise that the decision to allow trained, vetted and school board approved teachers to carry defensive arms was a bad idea. Therefore, I had (and have) no need to provide facts to back anything up. You presented the hypothesis…it’s on you to support it.
If that’s truly your opinion, surely you have something concrete upon which you based that opinion. Surely you wouldn’t have formulated an opinion without all the facts or with no basis other than a knee-jerk emotional reaction…right?
All I’m asking is for you to educate me. Tell me why this is a bad idea without relying on hyperbole and demagoguery to do so.
Hold on now, I said nothing about “crazed gunmen” potentially showing up at school, I’m talking about the guns that will be there for sure, worn by the teachers.
It seems to me that Texan (and Virginian) gun laws are a bit sketchy, so perhaps I’m preaching to the wrong choir? Who said the teachers would be trained on the use of a gun? The article said they would receive crisis-management training, not gun training. Texas doesn’t require even a license or a permit to buy a handgun, nor a waiting period, why would I want these teachers shooting any weapon in a room full of kids? Maybe the teachers ARE the crazy ones?
We are talking about schools, but really what you are proposing is more guns in any situation is a great idea in case the “crazies” show up. If you subscribe to a fear-based culture, you will live in fear, naturally. That’s just too much for me really.
You can’t say to me that you know for certain without a doubt that the Columbine situation would have had a happy ending if all of the teachers had possessed a gun? “Been there, done that” doesn’t really cover it.
You didn’t have to say anything about crazed gunmen, that’s what this whole issue is about. The school district, which is in a rural area and is located a goodly distance from any Police presence decided that, in the event of a Columbine or VA Tech type situation, it would benefit them to have a few armed teachers around.
The article you linked didn’t have much information. This story has actually been around for awhile. In fact, this is not a proposal. The policy has already gone into effect and some Harrold school district teachers are currently armed.
Had you done a google search for the story (I used “harrold texas schools”) you would have found a huge number of articles and commentaries on it with more detailed information…like This one for example:
In Texas, getting a concealed handgun permit requires training, as well as the other mandated special training they have to undergo. The district is not taking this lightly. They’ve put in place a very stringent policy. I would argue too stringent, but it’s their school, so their decision to make.
Why would you want a teacher firing a weapon in a roomful of kids? Because the teacher would be firing at the bad guy. The alternative is the bad guy executing each and every one of the “roomful of kids” with no opposition…as basically happened at VA Tech.
You seem to be making the assumption that a teacher can’t be trusted not to start shooting willy nilly as soon as some kid mouths off to him. If the teachers are that unbalanced, what’s to keep them from tossing a kid out the window or stabbing them with a pair of scissors? A gun is a tool. It’s not some magical talisman that causes insanity. Teachers are ALREADY entrusted with the lives and safety of our children every day.
Do you wear a seatbelt? Do you “live in fear” of having a car crash, or is it just prudent to wear a seatbelt just in case? How about fire extinguishers? Are they a good thing to have around or does having one mean that you are “living in fear” of fires?
It is absolutely ridiculous to believe that because someone carries the most effective tool for self defense on the off-chance that they may need it, that they are “living in fear.” That assumption is based upon stereotyping and bigotry, nothing more.
Is having a fire extinguisher a guarantee that anyone can put out any fire that may occur? Of course not. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a good idea to have one.
There are no happy endings to violent encounters. But the ending MAY be happier for at least some of the innocents if there is someone around to defend them. Is having armed teachers a guarantee that no one will be harmed? That the teachers will be able to stop the attack before being taken out of the fight themselves? That they will even get off a shot, let alone take out the attacker?
Of course not. No one’s issuing any guarantees here. But they’ve got a heck of a lot better chance of stopping an attack if they’re armed than if they aren’t.
And if history is any judge, they’ve got a pretty good chance of getting the job done. Most mass killers either give up, or kill themselves as soon as they face any type of armed resistance. They don’t choose “gun free zones” because they’re itching for a fight. They choose gun free zones because they are looking for a target rich environment with minimal risk to themselves.
Hm, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I don’t agree with you that civilians need to be armed in their day to day lives, period. I’m not bigoted against guns (as you have accused me twice now). Guns are tools, agreed but I don’t need to carry a drill everywhere. If I was going hunting, I would take a gun. I’m not going hunting, I’m going to the store (or where ever). To take that analogy a bit farther, a man with a hammer sees every problem as a nail. That’s just not acceptable in a civilized society. I’m not willing to give up my freedom to live in a militarized society, carrying guns everywhere “on the off-chance” I might need it. Sorry for the cheap demagoguery, but that’s how I feel…
I don’t equate wearing a seatbelt or having a fire extinguisher with carrying a gun. A car accident is an accident, as is a fire. An act of violence is not an accident, no matter what you say. Law enforcement is there to protect us against this sort of thing, and they have the tools do so. Let them do their jobs, and having everybody packing a gun does not help them in that regard.
First, I’d like to thank you for keeping this discussion civil. I’ve been in many like this that have quickly devolved into name calling and poo flinging.
I don’t necessarily believe you are bigoted against guns per se…but your opinions lend the impression that you are bigoted against citizens carrying them for self defense. I use the term bigotry because I sincerely feel that it better fits the expressed attitude. I believe that such an opinion is informed more by assumptions and emotions than by any critical evaluation of facts. At any rate, I intended it only as a descriptive of your stated position, not as a personal insult and I hope you didn’t take it as such.
I’ll not continue belaboring the points. So if you choose to respond to this comment, I’ll leave you the last word.
I was raised on a farm. I was taught to be as self sufficient as possible. Even though I now live in town, I drive a 4 wheel drive truck. I keep a toolbox, small air compressor, wrecking bars, tow straps, tie downs, a first aid kit etc etc etc in my truck at all times. Not because I believe I’ll need them every time I go anywhere, but because the possibility exists that I MIGHT need them. That’s the same reason that I carry a gun. I’m in my mid 40’s, I’ve been carrying a gun for many years and I’ve never needed it. And I sincerely hope and pray that I never do. But I will be prepared because the alternative can be devastating.
I agree with the old apothegm that you paraphrased, but there’s a counterpoint to it as well: When your only tool is a hammer, everything may look like a nail. But when you actually run across that odd nail, it sure sucks if you left your hammer at home.
Out of curiosity, what’s the name of the Police Officer assigned to your personal protective detail?
Seriously, the Police cannot be everyone’s personal bodyguards. As a fellow gun blogger once said: “Defending yourself is your responsibility, the Constables are only there to mark where the bodies ended up.”
Have you ever had to call 911? If so, how long did it take for them to get there? Do you realize that it took Cho about 12 minutes to kill 30 people and wound 17 others in Norris hall at Virginia Tech? It took three minutes for the first 911 call to be made, four minutes for the Police to show up (an UNUSUALLY fast response time by most standards), five minutes for them to gain entrance to the building and they got in just as Cho was firing his last shot, with which he killed himself. BTW: according to eyewitness accounts, he was not rushing. He was taking his time and executing defenseless students pretty much at will.
The vast majority of violent encounters last only a couple of minutes. Even if you had the ability to call 911 during that time, they would not arrive on scene until long after the event is over. When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.
Not only is it impossible for the Police to assume responsibility for every individual’s safety and security, but, based upon US Supreme Court precedent, it is not their responsibility to do so.
In summary, if you choose not to avail yourself of the tools of self defense and prefer to rely on the the goodwill and mercy of humanity and/or the effectiveness and timeliness of the Emergency Response System for your safety, that’s your decision to make. You will never hear an advocate of self defense demanding that you arm yourself.
The only thing that we ask is to have that courtesy returned. The Harrold school district made a decision based upon their school’s individual situation. Under the advisement and consent of the duly elected school board and with specific and stringent procedures spelled out, they determined that permitting a limited number of trained and qualified teachers to avail themselves of the most effective tool for defense of self and others currently available is a viable part of their overall security plan.
Ridiculing them (or law abiding citizens who choose to take responsibility for their own safety) for their decision based upon nothing more than emotion, hyperbole and unsupported assertions is, itself, worthy of ridicule.
In my humble opinion.
Obviously there are no stats on what MIGHT have been, but I’d really be curious to know the ratio of death or injury PREVENTED by legal civilian hand-gun ownership versus death or injury CAUSED by legal civilian hand-gun ownership?
I’m betting there is a lot more bloodshed caused by legal ownership than is prevented. Obviously that’s pure opinion.
I feel bad that Americans feel the need to own guns for protection. Here in Canada we own almost as many guns per capita as the U.S. yet our gun related crime or accidents related to guns is vastly lower than the U.S..
I don’t say that to gloat, I’m honestly curious why this is. I don’t think it’s any social variable, because, lets face it, the U.S. and Canada are very much alike. I know we’re limited to rifles used for hunting. It is very difficult to own a hand-gun here. Maybe it’s due to the fact that hand-guns are easily concealable. So, knowing that someone may be carrying a gun might lead many to carry their own guns “just in case”. The resulting volume of hardware out there just lends itself to accidents and misuse. After all, you don’t need to demonstrate good judgment to own a gun.
As far as the “gun-as-a-tool” analogy, you’re right, Sailorcurt. If a person is hell-bent on killing someone they could use a pencil if they wanted, so I sort of see your point. However, I’m focusing on the accidental injuries or death caused by guns. You don’t often accidentally kill someone with a fire extinguisher, a seatbelt, or even a pair of scissors. I mean, lets face it, guns are compelling devices. They beg to be handled…and not everyone is as responsible a gun owner/handler as you appear to be.
I guess, in short, it’s not guns I distrust. It’s people. You see examples of abysmally (often fatally) poor judgment everyday. Add guns into that mixture and it’s pretty easy to see what can happen.
It’s a pretty polarized argument. No one is going to convince either side of anything I don’t think.
To be very honest, this discussion was both entertaining and enlightening. I also thank you, Sailorcurt for keeping things above the board, and you obviously are very passionate about your beliefs. In fact, your arguments are eloquent and very clear. You didn’t change my mind on any of these points, but I think we can all agree it’s a complex subject worthy of discussion (and ridicule).
Thanks for your comments, it’s the most activity this blog has seen, well, ever.
[...] risk of revisiting a recent school safety topic, here’s one that doesn’t involve guns of any sort, but rather a much more dangerous [...]