Asking “Is Trump right?” would get me defriended by 90 percent of my Facebook circle. But this weblog is a safe space for inquiry!
Absurd as the idea sounds, given that U.S. teachers have an uneven performance record when it comes to the basics, I’m wondering if Trump is correct about teachers being the only real defense against would-be school shooters.
One thing that has been learned from a variety of mass shootings is that U.S. “first responders” are not like U.S. Marine Corps soldiers in the movies, e.g., “As Gunman Rampaged Through Florida School, Armed Deputy ‘Never Went In’”
Suppose that we can’t use legislation and coercion to confiscate all privately-owned guns in the U.S. and we’re not willing to tolerate a single shooter being able to fire at will in a “gun-free” school zone until the police have come up with a strategy for going in at zero personal risk. Is there an answer other than “it would have to be someone already stuck inside the school who would be willing to take the risk of returning fire”?
Its seems reasonable to assume that teachers bringing guns to school would probably result in quite a few accidental and/or enraged teacher shootings, perhaps statistically exceeding the number of mass shooting victims saved, but this issue is more about emotions than numbers.
I think this story already demonstrates arming teachers is a Really Bad Idea.
Not knowing much about the backstory, I would presume, that since Mr Davidson didn’t harm anyone or himself, he was making a point about how foolish an idea arming teachers would be.
Absolutely! Gun Free Zones = Sheep for the Slaughter Zones.
Disallowing licensed and background checked individuals to carry a concealed weapon on school grounds is ZERO impediment to anyone intent on going on a shooting spree. If you believe that anyone who is OK with murder one many times over is going to give a rats ass about your zoning laws, you are brain dead.
Anyone who is irresponsible enough, reckless enough, criminal enough or crazy enough to use a gun to hurt anyone in school is also irresponsible, reckless, criminal and crazy enough to completely ignore your gun laws and zoning rules. Whether or not teachers are the best agents of armed deterrence is not the point. How successful their efforts may have been is not the point. The point is that the innocent and the law abiding have a RIGHT, and are deserving of the OPTION, to be able defend themselves.
It should be ILLEGAL to designate any public facility a Gun Free Zone unless a secured perimeter, airport style entry screening and armed guards are provided. It should also be the CIVIL LIABILITY of the owners of any private facility who choose to ban concealed carry on the premise should a shooting occur and the victims suffer loss of life or injury without the ability to defend themselves.
If the concern is over firearms safety and accidents — which are the ONLY legitimate argument against arming licensed teachers, school employees and other law abiding adults — then the solution should be gun safety and marksmanship instruction in school!
Kalashnikovs for Kindergartners! .38s for eight year olds. Mac-10s for tenth graders.
There was a time when Israeli school kids were targeted.
Q. What did the Israeli teachers and the school administration do, that stopped these shooting situations?
There is a reason why we don’t see mass shorting at airports, or at police stations. Also, we allow concealed guns into many public places, such as public library to name one, why not allow it for teachers too who want one? It can be regulated just like we currently regulate drivers license: run a background check and fitness test every few years. It’s not hard to implement.
Untrained women, with guns, what could go wrong. The plot for a bad movie.
More seriously, classroom kids would play with the guns and shoot each other.
Trump has tried to propose a reasonable plan – that certain teachers who have the motivation and interest could voluntarily receive training and carry weapons (similar to the way some airline pilots are armed today). Naturally the media version – that all the nice kindergarten teachers would be forced to carry Uzis in their purse whether they wanted to or not – is the straw man that your facebook friends are beating instead.
Phil, any posting that begins with “My Facebook Friends (MFF)” should be highlighted for extra entertainment value 🙂
The solution is obvious, teachers would take too long to train and could be unreliable. With the progress in AI, schools could be equipped with an AI defense system.
Here is a demonstration of what an AI defense system could do 🙂
(ref: Hotel shootout scene from the series Altered Carbon)
Where does it stop after you arm the teachers? “Gun Free Zones” or any other term are just an attempt to change the focus from the “Guns” themselves.
The notion is so absurd and downright frightening that it’s hard to comprehend. Has it really come to this? Is that who we are? Is that who we want to be?
What a shit hole of a society we’ve become if that comes to pass.
The gun debate is pointless. Why? because in the USA there are already 300+ million guns already out ‘in the wild’. So even if you stopped all gun production and sales today, it would never make a dent on the mass killings.
What I don’t understand is why we couldn’t come up with some more creative solutions.
The point of having the right to bear arms, at least I thought, was to ensure the citizens had the right to protect themselves from tyranny.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
So where are all the well regulated militias? The semi-automatic rifles should be something that one can get only after joining a local militia club. All militias must swear an oath to the Constitution (not the government, mind you). Members would have to store their rifles at the militia armoury and can only fire them on club property for training in times of peace. The militia club would be responsible for training, security, documentation and behavior of their members. If the state or federal government represses citizens’ rights , then the militias can threaten to go all “Bundy” on them.
Perhaps small arms can remain in the house, but anything more powerful should be stored at the milita club.
If a teacher volunteers to carry a gun plus meets all the carry requirements and completes all required training (including meeting periodic marksman skill levels), then I see no reason why there would be a problem.
I would add that I do think it will be require concerted logistical effort and expense to maintain gun carrying teachers in the schools though. You’d have retirements, reassignments, resignations, terminations, etc. that would require constant management plus the costs of conducting background checks, training, certification, etc.
With sick time, vacations, etc. there might be pretty inconsistent coverage on any given day. On the other hand, just the possibility of having armed teachers would certainly deter some attackers.
Certainly there should be armed school resource officers as well, but the reality is that you can’t rely solely on those.
Arming teachers is a terrible idea unless it really is an organized, professional force with constant training, standards, requirements, etc.
The classroom is a hostile environment, and teachers are just as human and error prone as the next person. Between forgetfulness, accidents, pranks, or intentional theft, those guns will not safe.
So if you want to take some set of teachers, pay them some more, provide them gun safes, demand training and continuous education, along with medical (eye checks) and whatever else cops or security guards go through to make sure they are safe with guns in a crowd, then maybe.
Jerry, et al: I think you guys are not responding to Trump’s basic statement, i.e., that if what you care most about is reducing mass shootings in schools you should support people who work inside the school having the capability of shooting back. To say “Yes, but armed teachers may do unrelated (bad) things with their guns” is not responsive unless you’re saying that a teacher will become the mass shooter.
I don’t think that a teacher should keep a gun with him in school. It makes bad impression on students and this is opposite to the work of any teacher.
Arming teachers is a bad idea, but allowing qualified teachers to be armed is reasonable. If a middle sized school has 100 teachers and staff, having 2 or 3 staff concealed carrying could make sense. Also, why not arm guidance counselors instead?
There’s a lot to consider though. I don’t think normalizing guns in the classroom is good for students, and we don’t want fights where someone tries to get the gun from the teacher.
On the other hand, I don’t worry about stray bullets. In a mass shooting, isn’t everyone on the ground, or hiding? Except the shooter, that is. It’s not hard to identify the kid with the long gun.
Pavel, what is the media going to say about Boston Dynamics Killer Star Wars Bots defending the schools?
Philip,
I am not competent enough to address the issue of arming teachers.
But I will note that Israeli schools appear have much better defenses against a potential shooter. You simply cannot get inside of an Israeli school’s campus until you pass through a security gate with armed security guards, who appear to know what they are doing.
Here is an example: http://www.imagesofmythoughts.com/News/News-2011/20110901-19-million-return-to/i-p7pMnmr/A
All of this security occurs outside of the actual building.
I think this may be one reason why there haven’t been any school shootings in Israel.
Perhaps similar defenses should be applied to school campuses in the United States?
Mass shooters are aware of the average amount of time it takes for the police to respond and take advantage of it to do their mass shooting. Most mass shootings are over in a few minutes so by the time the police get there the damage is already done. Mass shooters usually avoid shooting up places where they can count on an armed response in seconds instead of minutes (e.g. no mass shootings inside police stations) because they know this might interfere with their plans. Most mass shooters don’t fear death, in fact they usually expect or even desire to be killed but they want enough time to carry out their mass shooting first so they can go out in a blaze of publicity. So anything that would change mass shooters perceptions of the predicted response time in schools would be good. OTOH, this might just shift their chosen venue away from schools and onto other places where people gather. Likewise eliminating guns would just change their chose weapon to something else, e.g. box trucks.
Banning “assault rifles” (as was done in the Clinton years) is particularly stupid because an assault rifle is defined by appearance rather than function – it’s something that LOOKS like a military weapon instead of a hunting weapon (no one wants to ban hunting weapons). The function of an assault rifle is to fire a projectile that will kill a large mammal at a distance. The function of an hunting rifle is to fire a projectile that will kill a large mammal at a distance. The bullet doesn’t really care if the target is a deer or a human.
Nor is it practical to ban things like large capacity magazines – aside from the fact that there are millions upon million of these things already out there, a magazine is not a high tech device – it’s a simple metal or plastic box with a spring – well within the capabilities of a 3D printer or other home brew manufacturing.
Steve:
If the media is in Silicon Valley, Boston Dynamics Killer Star Wars Bots (BDKSWB) will be hailed as the new amazing solution and the Boston Dynamics will have their first revenue generating product. Every school and every post secondary education would have to implement the BDKSWB solution. What could go wrong?
The Boston Dynamics commercial would show a couple of students petting the Boston Dynamics robotic dog at the school and then suddenly a man would come in through the front door with an AR-15. At this point we would go into slow motion, showing a mini-gun pop out from the robotic dog and turning the man into swiss cheese, while the students are cheering in the background.
In Texas, some old lady will be interviewed on the news, and she will give the following quote “I have been hunting since I was 10 years old, I can take out that tin can with four legs with my 308 rifle, and if that does not work, I have my trusty 12 gauge for close encounters.”
In a world going insane, the solution from Israel sounds like the best plan given the amount of guns in the US and the length of time required to change a culture.
“Its seems reasonable to assume that teachers bringing guns to school would probably result in quite a few accidental and/or enraged teacher shootings, perhaps statistically exceeding the number of mass shooting victims saved, but this issue is more about emotions than numbers.”
This is possibly true, but only because the risk of a mass-school shooting is so low. About 12 kids a year die on average, which is 1/10 school-bus transportation accidents. A student is 100x more likely to due driving themselves to school. So my answer is – we do nothing, as the risk is so low. About same as dying from lightning or by dog bite. Though I would be fine with letting teachers carry CCW if they wanted to, but would not establish a special program for it.
“So where are all the well regulated militias? The semi-automatic rifles should be something that one can get only after joining a local militia club. All militias must swear an oath to the Constitution (not the government, mind you). Members would have to store their rifles at the militia armoury and can only fire them on club property for training in times of peace. The militia club would be responsible for training, security, documentation and behavior of their members. If the state or federal government represses citizens’ rights , then the militias can threaten to go all “Bundy” on them.”
We have a right to be armed because of the militia being a necessary threat. The Militia and the People (who have the right to be armed) are two different groups. We can be armed as individual people.
@Trebor
Thanks, I stand corrected then!
No, just make it illegal to buy guns and they will go away, just like drugs.
Oh yeah, all the talking points come out in this thread. As a German officer I’d like to tackle some of them:
1. No shootings in police stations
There are less shootings at libraries, restaurants and camping grounds, too. But that’s because these aren’t social spaces where people meet often and for long times. Students attack other students mostly because they were the victim of psychological violence and because a firearm is available when they snap. The same is true for office workers going postal. Additionally, the police and the army are reasonably good at sorting out employees with psychological problems or in case of the army, giving them jobs where those are an asset.
2. “Everybody is on the ground in a mass shooting aside from the good guy with the gun and the bad guy with the gun”, “the bad guy with the gun is easy to identify”
These are just plain bullshit. In every active shooter situation that I heard of in training, figuring out who was shooting from where was a major problem. Multiple shooters will generate a myriad of wrong reports, will probably get the “good guys” reported as the shooter making the bad guy more difficult to pin down, will make people otherwise taking cover flee from the “good guys”. The active shooter has 100% targets (everything that moves), the good guy has one or more unknown targets (might be a single suspect or multiple people like in Columbine), probably in civilian clothes, possibly multiple other good guys with guns who look just like the bad guy AND hundreds of targets moving into all directions as soon as they see a gun that the good guy needs to filter visually.
There is a good reason why at least German first responder teams never send in plainclothed officers. They’ll get killed when the SWAT team moves in. I personally think that US police officers must be terrified of having to deal with armed amateurs in a fast moving active shooter situation.
In training situations, law enforcement officers often mistake other officers *in uniform* for targets and point their guns at them as soon as the threat of a firearm enters their field
of view. So they train to shoot only after positive secondary identification. A shooter who shoots at everything that moves is indistinguishable from a teacher in that case.
In summary: Taking a firearm with you as a teacher is a fantastic way to get shot by the shooter when moving towards him or by the SWAT team when moving away from him, or get dragged in front of a judge for manslaughter when you inevitably mistake either a cop or a student for the shooter. If I were a teacher I would be terrified of being crucified for not shooting, not shooting the right person, interfering with law enforcement… I’d rather not carry a gun!
3. That leaves us with “the teacher should not go after the shooter, instead, they should harden the classroom and point their gun at the door”
This would be more of a reasonable stance… given a nationwide ban on rifles that easily penetrate drywall and doors. It wouldn’t help the students out in the open. The shooter could address this problem by activating the fire alarm or laying a fire. Oh wait, that’s exactly what happened. So I don’t know if that’s realistic. It could certainly “help a bit”. How would the teacher distinguish between opening the door for fleeing students or the shooter? The shooter just needs to know where people approximately are and fire. Does the teacher wait for secondary id?
In summary: most peer reviewed work on firearm use in policing or friendly fire incidents in the army that I have come across point to this only working with a massive training program, uniformed teachers, hardened schools (flame retardant and secure doors), a ban on weapons carried by students… in short it would be so expensive that simply instituting a nationwide buyback for the millions of weapons (ie. cash for guns) would be likely more effective in reducing these incidents.
At the very least I think that the “good guy with a gun” narrative ignores a lot of difficult problems that actually arise such complicated situations in favor of a hollywood fiction view of a John McClane-type teacher that has no basis in reality.