On the cockamamie idea of arming teachers
1. Teachers are depressed and burnt out. The argument for arming teachers is the same argument that says guns are not the problem — mental health is. If so, there are few professional populations, I would conjecture purely on the basis of experience, that are more depressed. If you argue that the mentally ill should not have guns, this precludes many teachers. Teachers work with enormous emotional burdens, often sleep and eat too little, and do their best with very limited resources. Give them vacation, not guns. Give them more prep time, not guns. Give them a decent lunch break, not guns. Give them money for their classrooms, not guns. Give them smaller classes, not guns. Give them aides, not guns. Give them social workers and psychiatrists for colleagues, not guns. Give them therapy, not guns.
2. Armed teachers won’t make a classroom safer. A concealed weapon, which would probably only be able to fire a handful of rounds, would be no match for an assault rifle anyway. Imagine being a young child in a classroom. Imagine you and your teacher don’t get along. Now imagine your teacher might have a concealed weapon. I was afraid of some of my teachers because their *personalities* were scary — would I have gone to their class if I thought they were both angry and armed? If we want to arm teachers, we may as well have police teach school, and do away with the teaching profession entirely. An armed teacher does not create the environment students need for success. An environment of fear and oppression is not one in which true education can occur. Also imagine children, not understanding boundaries and appropriate behavior, stealing a teacher’s concealed weapon while the teacher is distracted — I certainly was distracted nearly 100% of the time. Can we imagine how this might go wrong?
3. Schools are not the only places in which mass shootings occur. The argument for arming teachers is nonsensical when examined in a broader context: By the same token, we should be arming every single person in the country, and hoping that the majority of those people do not wish to kill anyone. Shootings take place in public spaces — who is responsible for shooting the shooter there, before the police can arrive? Do we need to make police out of priests, out of imams, out of rabbis? Where do we draw the line?
4. Under what circumstances do we suppose the teacher should shoot her student, or threaten the student with a gun? I can imagine myriad ways in which this could go wrong. Do we train armed teachers to shoot only after someone has been killed? If a gun is drawn? If a student is brandishing a knife? I think of little Tamir Rice, killed for having a toy gun — how many children are we willing to lose for the supposed safety of the masses? How do we imagine that a teacher should both sacrifice herself for her students, and simultaneously be willing to kill them?
5. Why does our goverment want to set teachers up as a scapegoat when disaster strikes? Giving teachers guns pushes the responsibility for school shooting disasters onto teachers, and off the shoulders of our lawmakers. An armed teacher who decides not to shoot a potentially dangerous person in the building, or who waits too long and is injured or killed, or allows her weapon to be taken from her — this person is who will be blamed when disaster strikes. Convenient?
6. And most simply, NOBODY NEEDS AN ASSAULT RIFLE. Why is it so hard for us to ban them outright?
Emma González, you and your friends are my heroes.
