Three Reasons We Shouldn’t Arm Teachers

This morning a presumably pajama-clad President Trump Tweeted his support for arming teachers. Not all teachers. “Highly qualified, gun adept teachers.” Teachers with military or special training experience.” How many? The President wants 20 percent of their total population. As America is home to an estimated 3.2 million elementary and secondary school teachers, President Trump would like to arm . . .

640,000 teachers. That’s a lot of guns. And there are a lot of people — especially teachers — who oppose the idea of arming any teachers. As in reject it utterly and completely.

In fact, so many people oppose arming teachers that the mainstream media has a huge choice of educators, administrators and parents ready, willing and able to tell their fellow countrymen why school children are better off without armed, law-abiding citizens nearby, protecting kids from homicidal maniacs.

Not surprisingly, those who declared that Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms ends at the school gate rely on the same justifications for their position. Here they are with my rebuttal:

Accidents will happen! Children will be shot by teachers! By curious or naughty students! 

If we armed 640k public school teachers there’s a real possibility that a careless teacher might shoot a student or students accidentally. Real, but really small. The odds of any such accident being fatal are smaller still.

As callous as this sounds, you have to balance the odds of an armed teacher committing a fatal negligent discharge — or a student getting ahold of a teacher’s firearm and shooting themselves or others — against the odds that a child will be killed by a spree killer or killers before good guys with guns put an end to a homicidal rampage.

I’m not going to play duelling stats. Suffice it to say, myself and millions of gun owners — people who have hands-on knowledge of gun safety — believe that school shooters pose a significantly larger threat to our children than irresponsible armed teachers.

Armed teachers will shoot the wrong person!

The fear: an armed teacher will try to shoot a spree killer or killers and shoot and kill a child or children by mistake.

Again, it could happen. In this case you have to balance the odds of a missed shot or shots taking out a student or students against the odds of an unopposed spree killer shooting and killing (or stabbing or blowing up) a child or children. And yes, you have to compare the potential body count.

As the armed teacher would have a specific target (e.g., the killer or killers) and the intruder or intruders are [usually] out to kill as many people as possible, the spree killers will have a radically higher “kill ratio” than any teacher with lousy aim and/or no consideration for the possibility of a missed shot injuring or killing an innocent bystander.

TTAG’s run an exhaustive school shooting simulation and found that even relatively untrained armed defenders don’t shoot good guys by mistake. In fact, they’re excellent at stopping a lethal threat. Just sayin’ . . .

The police won’t know who’s who when they bring their guns to stop a spree killing!

I can’t find a single example of a police officer shooting an armed good guy by mistake in any defensive gun use, and I’ve been scanning the net for nigh on nine years. But I can’t deny the possibility that a law enforcement officer might shoot and kill an armed teacher by mistake. And?

You don’t need specialized training to realize that if you bring a firearm out to defend innocent life in the middle of a school shooting, the cops might consider you a lethal threat. So, basically, an armed teacher accepts this possibility — and carries a gun anyway.

As far as an armed teacher somehow distracting cops from a real threat during a school shooting, I don’t think that’s a big problem either. And even if it was, again, the positive impact of an armed teacher opposing a spree killer outweighs the potential negative impact of a distracted police officer. Or, for that matter, a mistakenly shot and killed teacher.

And there you have it

Cold-blooded stuff, right? Which is why people who oppose armed teachers refuse to consider the facts of the matter. I suspect that they suspect that any such analysis would lead to a conclusion in direct opposition to their core belief: guns are bad.

Well yes they are. Guns are bad in the hands of bad people. But 2.1 million defensive gun uses per year say guns are good in good hands. Did I miss something? Why wouldn’t we want our children in good hands?

comments

  1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

    There is no valid argument for not allowing all school personnel and all members of the schools community to carry on school grounds.

    To carry or not is up to the individual. The ones who obey the current criminal GFZ signs are not the ones to worry about.

    1. avatar Chadwick says:

      Exactly. No mandate needed, just stop making it impossible for teachers to arm themselves. Utah lets teachers carry if they want and that’s working out just fine for us. Now stop infringing on the rights of teachers in all states. Not to mention the parents that have to leave their guns in their car just because they go to pick up kids. Again this is a non-issue in Utah. Maybe it works for us or maybe I’m up to my eyeballs from all that blood in the streets and can’t see the problems. The street looks damn dry to me.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        How do you expect ANY teacher, whose entrenched in systemic bias against conservatives and conservative principles, to carry a gun? It goes against every fiber of their being as they would be hypocrites to those students they are indoctrinating into the liberal democratic party.

        1. avatar Bob says:

          Whoa! All teachers are indoctrinating students to become liberal democrats! Sorry, but not true. This is my 40th year of teaching, and even though many teachers are liberal democrats, there are those of us who hold the values of our constitution very dear! If you do not me armed because I am a teacher than it is no wonder that we cannot have an intelligent discussion about this issue.

      2. avatar Inidaho says:

        Thank you!!! Well said!!! In idaho, it is up to the school district, who they allow carry. We have offered no charge firearms training to the school board for teachers. That was shot down two years ago. In Pocatello, gun free school zones. The Stephens performing arts center on ISU is gun free according to Idaho law!
        Thank you again!!!!

    2. avatar Art out West says:

      Exactly! We don’t have to “arm the teachers”. We just need to let all faculty and staff with a ccw carry their firearm on school premises (as well as parents, volunteers, etc.). Just get rid of the stupid gun free zones.

      We trust people to carry guns everywhere else. Get rid of GFZs. Besides that, we already entrust children to teachers. If the teachers can’t be trusted with guns, then they probably shouldn’t be trusted with children either.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      As I posted yesterday, perhaps here, perhaps elsewhere, it is not necessary to arm up 20% of the teachers.

      Remove the Gun Free Zone restriction from schools, allow teachers with proper credentials to carry, if they want to, when they want to, and post REALLY BIG signs around the school, inside and out:

      “THIS SCHOOL IS NOT A GUN FREE ZONE!”

      Problem solved.

      1. avatar DAVE F says:

        Cliff H I agree with every thing you say except: ” Problem solved “. This imply’s what you say corrects (ends) all school shootings when in fact will only deter ( which is good don’t get me wrong ) but there are other factors that also need to be addressed to prevent , as far as possible, school shootings. Your idea is a great start but only a start. Thank you for speaking up. Stay safe. DAVE

      2. avatar Inidaho says:

        Well said thank you!!

      3. avatar Retrocon says:

        You also need to make it illegal for administrators or other faculty to even ask teachers if they are carrying.

        Think about it. It is necessary.

    4. avatar RadicalAmericasGotTalent says:

      What the serial liar Robert Farago ludicrously terms “TTAG’s exhaustive school shooting simulation” is a rigged clown show performed by and predictably sharing all the prejudiced and unsubstantiated assumptions of TTAGs delusional gun nuts.

      It is NOT an authoritative academic field study whose report is subjected to peer review as Farago inanely attemps to characterize it by misusing words like “exhaustive” and “simulation”.

      Hilarious to watch yall donkeys trying to ape academics : D

      1. avatar Unrepentent Libertarian says:

        Your drug addled brain needs to seriously get some rest. Your Soros bot job has given you some serious brain damage.. Trying to belittle folks that are more knowledgeable on a subject than you is unbecoming.

    5. avatar Retrocon says:

      I think all CCW should be shall issue. Actually, no permit should be required anywhere.

      That said, I would argue that you also need to at least make teachers shall issue nationally. NY, CA, IL will continue to be gun free zones if you don’t, and libs will say it doesn’t work, even though they will be keeping it gun free through non issuance of the CCW.

  2. avatar stateisevil says:

    GOP gun control package on the way next week. Ah, I remember the good old days back in 2017, with talk of the HPA and Reciprocity. A number of schools will have more armed defenders, at great cost, and the 2nd amendment will be shat on. Somebody flipped a switched in the 90s with the mass shootings. They’re not going to stop. Whether it’s the psycho drugs, CIA operation to disarm America, or just a nation in decline, the shootings will continue. We’re not getting protection from the courts, so it’s just a matter of time before the ban hammer comes to your door. New stuff at first of course, which is how they’ll avoid an armed revolt.

    1. avatar Hank says:

      Storms’ a commin.

      1. avatar Dev says:

        The only thing that’s coming is another 20-30 years of back and forth between the two parties, taking away and then “giving back” our rights. I’m positive that there are a good amount of people in the DNC that truly do want to confiscate every firearm in the U.S. However, I am much more positive that those who want to keep their position and power don’t want the “gun control problem” to end one way or the other because there is just too damn much money coming in! The Republicans are doing the the same thing just using the opposite positions. Both parties plan on riding this issue for decades and as long as we have hysteria on both sides (yes the anti side is borderline insane with their antics but there’s more than a few people who support the 2A that should keep their comments to themselves) they are happy. Happy to profit, of course.

    2. avatar Cloud says:

      Jim Jordan of OH has enough votes to kill anything they bring up in the House unless it has national reciprocity in it.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        Agreed. CC Reciprocity is a MUST to reward, instead of penalize, all biding citizens. However, the GOP would be served well to further include some of Trumps suggestions – increase age to PURCHASE a gun (there can be exceptions, military service and law enforcement, etc….) but allow them to operate a gun at 18 under the supervision of a lawful license holder. Establish a mental health level and national database that the NCIS can access and determine if an applicant qualifies. Get rid of bump-stocks, take away “gun-free” zones, thats just a massacre begging to happen. The current ridiculous gun laws are ALL DEM initiatives they implemented over the last 30 years. I agree that those teachers who want to carry, go through training – but in states like NY – how can the state government allow a teacher to carry in case there is a problem…and not its own law abiding citizens. Some counties in NY require “good cause” such as a victim of domestic violence, if your life is being threatened and you filed police reports to substantiate those claims, or you deposit more than $4K a week into a bank. Other than that – NO CARRY PERMIT in NY (I don’t consider the ridiculously strict hunting/target license as a carry, because its ONLY good going to, or leaving a gun range, and you have to take a DIRECT route there form your house, can’t stop to eat, etc….. This is why those new limitations Trump wants have to be balanced with passing US Conceal Carry Reciprocity.

        1. avatar anarchyst says:

          You are wrong. Asking government for PERMISSION to exercise a Constitutional right converts a right into a privilege, which governments routinely abuse.
          You are wrong on all counts…

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Preach, brother anarchyst. It is maddening that so many POTG don’t get that or don’t see why that is crucial.

        3. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

          No. You are an enabler of tyranny.

    3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      If a switch was flipped, it was in the 70s or 80s.

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        1975; O’Connor v. Donaldson.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I said 70s or 80s because the only numbers I’ve seen that goes back to the beginning of the 20th century had relatively steady numbers after the 70s. It was a short article and noted that the feds started tracking the numbers in the mid 70s.

          I was specifically commenting on the claim that the mass shootings phenomena began in the 90s.

          All that said, that’s an interesting possible cause of all this. The 70s had about half the number of mass shootings and the 80s on. I thought it might have been because the feds started keeping track of them halfway through the decade.

          It might be that the mass shooting thing really is a mental health problem. I’ve heard conflicting reports about whether or not mental health is a factor. One thing I saw said 65 out of 67 mass shooters had a history of mental health problems. It was an infographic, so I don’t really put much stock in it. But the accounts of mental health not being a part of the problem is from unsourced reports from journalists.

  3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    While I agree with everything that you said Mr. Farago, your explanation will not impact pacifists gun-grabbers.

    And the explanation is simple: gun-grabbers have a position based on emotion and Polyannaism which means their counterarguments will revolve around circumstances and not facts. In other words gun-grabbers will keep spouting ever-changing circumstances that preclude anyone but police being armed.

    You cannot kick a field goal if the goal posts are always moving.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Because gun-grabbers and Leftists always devolve to ever-changing circumstances to justify their “positions”, I am thinking now that we should smash that tactic. Tell them straight up that a world where everything is up to interpretation is not livable and means that I can justify abusing anyone for any reason, including them.

    2. avatar Bloving says:

      I define a pacifist as a person who will not initiate violence. There is a different word for these bigots.
      A wolf is a criminal who preys on the weak and helpless sheep.
      A sheepdog is the armed citizen, law enforcement officer, or soldier who defends the sheep.
      Then there’s the sheep – who despite the fact that the sheepdog means them no harm and is in fact, protecting them, still sees them as terrifyingly similar to wolves.
      They are sheep. And we’ll never convince them that we are not wolves.
      They must convince themselves.
      🤠

      1. avatar DAVE F says:

        Short and sweet. Great way of explaining the issue. Thank you. Stay safe. DAVE

      2. avatar anarchyst says:

        The problem with “pacifism” is not only will pacifists not initiate violence, but they will do NOTHING to mitigate violence by others, or protect the innocent, even when they could easily subdue the perpetrator.
        THAT is a problem with pacifism. As far as I am concerned, pacifism is a non-human trait which denies the validity of protecting one’s life or the life of others.

        1. avatar afp3 says:

          The sheep always despise the sheepdog until the wolves are near.

  4. avatar Rick says:

    Those are the same excuses they make for anyone carrying anywhere. I especially like the third… after I shoot the bad guy, have lunch, take a nap, and then the cops show up I might get shot… yeah.

  5. avatar Ralph says:

    Frankly, after spending way too much time around teachers (my late ex-wife was one and I have a lot of “schooling”), I’d feel safer around mentally disturbed youths.

    Teachers aren’t the solution. They’re the problem, or at least they’re a big part of the problem.

    But, yes, they have as much right to arm up as anyone. So let them carry. Just don’t expect them to do anything good. Because if they could, they would, but they can’t, so they teach. And they can’t teach.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      I can *easily* see a teacher unable or unwilling to shoot an attacker they either had as a student or knew personally. Their brains will completely ‘lock up’ (Billy? Billy is doing *this*???) and they will just stand there like a deer in headlights.

      And the ‘after action’ report will note the dead teacher will never have even drawn their weapon…

      1. avatar Chad says:

        Many well trained police officers do the same thing…

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      If what you say is true, then you know that 1-2% of teachers are great and competent people.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        And then at some point that 1-2% realize they are surrounded by mostly idiots and they get the hell out of the profession.

    3. avatar doesky2 says:

      You win the interwebby thinggy post of the week.

  6. avatar Gary says:

    I think a very large part of the city dwelling people; especially in Democratic controlled cities, would be against having even an armed police officer at school, even though like in Chicago; they can hear the sound of gunfire while they are in school. They live on talking points and the promise of a socialist utopia to be provided by people who have never held a job other than class or civil office. How you going to tell them police officers get qualified in just a couple of weeks and are completely vetted within a year? They don’t think any human needs a gun. Ever. They teach professional victimization.

    1. avatar City guy says:

      My kids go to a public elementary school in Chicago. One of our security guards is also a police officer and carries his Glock. I haven’t heard any complaints. Back when the kids had to pay for lunches, we’d also have cash pickups which were done by a random armored car service which used armed guards. Not a peep.

  7. avatar Kevin says:

    Of course there will be accidents, ND’s and all of the above. Cops have always (?) carried guns, and they have the same issues. But that’s not a reason not to arm and train competent people who are inclined to serve. Or to have purpose- hired security guards for that matter. The key is to let each school or district form a security plan and implement it. It would be perfectly reasonable, for example, for the local PD to set up a satellite police station at a school. The deterrence effect would be huge.

    But let’s face it, these incidents are incredibly rare. The risk of the armed security would would almost certainly outweigh the actual risk of a mass shooting.

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      Agreed. This problem (school shootings) isn’t going to be solved at the national level. The states need to step up and lead the way, and the federal politicians need to STFU about it. Federal level “solutions” to this problem are more likely to reduce or eliminate 2A rights while not doing anything to protect students.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Before we let individual schools decide these important issues of safety, maybe parents should be able to choose which school their kids can go to.

  8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Although there are exceptions, in my experience school teachers tend to be both the stupidest and most liberal minded people in our society (YMMV). I don’t see 1/4 of all teachers being willing to carry and I don’t believe that people should be forced to do things they don’t want to do (not even bed wetting liberals). However those who do wish to carry should be allowed to as well as visitors. Even if 5% or 10% of teachers and administers carry it could seriously limit the lethality of these attacks and that in turn would reduce the publicity these yahoos get, which is exactly what they’re seeking.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “in my experience school teachers tend to be both the stupidest and most liberal minded people in our society”

      Your experience and mine are identical. And both of us are probably giving teachers more respect than they deserve.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        I can easily see teachers that carry will be shunned outcasts in the eyes of their ‘Progressive’ peers.

        They will be passed over for promotion, outright harassed by other teachers, etc…

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          That’s an interesting thought. I would have said that school administrators should know who’s packing, but now that I think about it, maybe a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is best.

      2. avatar PukeRalphVomit says:

        Puke Ralph Vomit if you had listened for example to your math teacher then you would be able to understand the statistics about black folks and crime, or to your earth science teacher then you understand anthropogenic climate change etc.

        And of course your history teacher was likewise in your “mind” “the stupidest” so you maintain Archie Bunker’s delusions about “those were the days” despite the rampant racism, sexism, homophobia etc of pre-1960s America

        Youre the worst of America

    2. avatar Trollolol says:

      There is an interesting growth in veterans becoming teachers and counselors. I can’t find the exact numbers, but I was reading some VA literature while in a waiting room about it. It’s a growing minority. The military tends to skew right, but of course we have no idea if its just liberal vets becoming teachers.

      Just something to chew on.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Even if they’re liberal vets that would still likely raise the median IQ.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        The “Troops to the Teachers” thing started during the Clinton drawdown(shutdown) in the early 90s. Largely a myth. GIs are NOT part of the club/coven. They have not had the progtard indoctrination at age 18-25, had the “how to brainwash the kiddies” instruction etc. Not union endorsed. To conservative and to independent minded. Not sufficiently mediocre.

    3. avatar Bloving says:

      Hmm. I guess the schools I went to attracted a different breed of teacher…
      True, though – many teachers are indeed sheep (per my comment above) and should not be issued a firearm. But then, we’re not suggesting issuing guns at all – just no longer prohibiting the few sheepdogs among their ranks from being able to defend themselves. It’s a small but very important distinction.
      🤠

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        I had a couple of good teachers.

      2. avatar Ing says:

        If you’re over 40, then almost all of your teachers were a different breed. Plenty of leftist nincompoopery came out of the ’60s (and there have always been plenty of incompetents in the ranks) but it wasn’t until the 1990s that the progtard takeover got to the point where virtually every teacher was a brainwashed Marxist tool.

        1. avatar DingALingING says:

          Does calling teachers “brainwashed Marxist tools” have any substantive meaning or is this another childish slur youre regurgitating?

          If it doesnt tax your faculties too much try to give an example and cite your evidence and Ill be glad to give you a documented correction.

    4. avatar GovFaubusTheStupidest says:

      Gov Faubus if you would have listend to your history teacher you would not be wholly ignorant of NATIONALISMs crucial role in facilitating mass conscription in the late 19th C.

      Remember dunce, you ignorantly proclaimed that in the late 19th C the only reason people stayed in the military was fear of being shot!?

      This is typical of the regressive TTAG ignoramuses, you are ignorant of even junior high school-level information yet you endlessly authoritatively condemn other folks intellectual capacity ie Obama/Clinton are idiots, teachers are “the stupidest”

      AND when I give you a documented correction you simply ignore it.

      This is your reality, repeating bullsheet and ignoring the documented corrections

  9. avatar Shire-man says:

    If there’s one thing I’ve learned from all the “OMG” anti’s it’s that teachers are short-tempered, inept children who shouldn’t be allowed out of their homes without supervision. That’s the impression I’m left with anyway. Who knew teachers were such worthless pieces of shit incapable of running their own lives?

    1. avatar n64456 says:

      Lemme guess… Nashua HS?

  10. avatar Kyle says:

    I do not find the arguments valid.

    Certainly, each school district will likely impose its own set of instructions on any “armed teacher” policy. Some school districts, such as those in the SF bay area and Manhattan will simply make it impossible by some pseudo-legal gymnastics. Others, Cheyenne Wyoming, Flagstaff AZ, etc, will come up with a system to incorporate armed teachers into a defensive strategy.

    So, in short, those liberal hell holes that will screw it up, will likely be not much better than they are now. But those who are not run by people slightly less intelligent than the 4-legged school mascot will be significantly better off.

  11. avatar WARFAB says:

    A lot of the concerns are based on the canard that ALL teachers would/should be armed. The reality of the situation should/would be more like Utah; where teachers with concealed carry permits are allowed to carry if they want to. The process would be self selecting to some degree considering the livelihood of the teacher and the lives of the students are potentially at stake. Teachers who don’t feel comfortable doing it shouldn’t and most likely will choose not to.

    The fact that the plan to arm teachers seems to be everyone arguing theoreticals instead of facts and statistics is troubling. According the the Huffington Post as many as 18 states allow some sort of armed defense on school grounds. I’m not sure if that number is accurate, but there are definitely states that allow and encourage teachers to carry. Why aren’t there studies and stats we can review to help encourage or discourage this plan? My guess is it’s because the mainstream media has no interest in doing so, but it seems like the NRA should be all over providing reality based information on this.

  12. avatar Setnakhte says:

    “Arming” and “removing infringements on RTKBA” are different things.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yep. The simple solution is just remove the infringements. Too much government has created a problem. The solution is not more government; it is less.

  13. avatar IN Dave says:

    There are already schools that allow carry. They have for years now. I still waiting on one of these incidents. Still waiting.

  14. avatar JohnS says:

    We already know the results of NOT arming teachers, don’t we?

    Folks keep wanting to ‘do something’; this suggestion is different from what we’re already (not) doing.

  15. avatar Behind the lines in the PRK says:

    As someone who worked among teachers in a non-teaching position at L.A.U.S.D. I promise you the last people you want to arm are most teachers. L.A.U.S.D., I assume like most metropolitan school districts, has a huge armed school police dept. alleged to possess even grenade launchers. I recall an armed security person(the Narc) at my high school all the way back in the 70’s.
    File this fear of armed personnel on campus in the same category as “teachers are underpaid”. Total B.S.

  16. avatar Alexander says:

    The Left would never allow guns in school because they have spent half a century getting control of the school so that they could brainwash the future generations with their agendas. They need the new generation to grow up in the culture of disarmament and to completely rely on the omnipresent State. They cannot allow kids to grow up while even seeing guns nearby, in the possession of non-uniformed individuals.

  17. avatar TexTed says:

    Talking about “arming teachers” is a losing proposition and should be stamped out by the pro-2A crowd.

    Nobody wants to “arm teachers”. I don’t want to go putting a gun in anybody’s hands, who doesn’t already want it there.

    This is not about “arming teachers.” The winning strategy is to point out that there are already many teachers across this land who are already interested, trained, and licensed, who already own their own firearms, who are already comfortable with using a firearm, who already know what they’re doing. All we want to do is take the shackles off them.

    Guys — saying things like “arming teachers” terrifies the teachers who are anti’s. It just inflames passions, and it’s factually inaccurate anyway. Drop the “arming teachers” rhetoric, and instead focus on allowing those dedicated, devoted, law-abiding and trained individuals to protect themselves and others. That’ll be a much easier pill for the pearl-clutchers to swallow.

    1. avatar John in IN says:

      The correct language is, I think, “Stop requiring teachers to be disarmed”. I personally don’t like “Allow teachers to be armed” just because it misrepresents the owner of the right. The antis often twist that to “Arm teachers”. Because to , them at least, it’s more provocative. And more likely to garner resistance than the more precise language.

      “Have armed staff on campus”. works for me, too. Then it can be police, resource officers, teacher or janitors. Whatever the school district chooses.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        How about “stop disarming our teachers” or, “stop killing teachers” to mirror the left’s hyperbole (“the NRA has blood on it’s hands”)?

  18. avatar Brian in WI says:

    On the ‘the cops will shoot you by mistake’ argument, how often do the cops shoot a plain clothes officer that might be responding to a shooting? I think there are ways to minimize that risk that can be developed. I think it is one of those things that sounds more likely than it really is.

    1. avatar Tyrone says:

      Depends, is he black?

  19. avatar just says:

    It is utterly shameful for anyone to leave disarmed those that tried to protect innocent children.

    Per radio and news:

    Dead at Parkland: Aaron Feis their Coach AND SECURITY GUARD. Shot multiple times sheltering children from bullets. He had no way to return fire.

    Shame upon those responsible for killing this man by disarming him and preventing him from protecting others.

  20. avatar Erin says:

    I’d say an on duty, undercover cop probably counts as a good guy shot by mistake:

    http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/tag/william-torbit/

    1. avatar Brian in WI says:

      How often does that occur? Across multiple police departments? Different department protocols? I am honestly asking, these are the kinds of things that need to be looked at. What protocols can minimize that risk? It might be more common than people know, or this could be closer to a one off event.

  21. avatar Charles says:

    It is telling that the coach at the Florida high school that all the students and gun grabbers are calling a hero, was a second amendment fan. Look at his facebook page, countless entries on guns, stand your ground and second amendment. He was right wing.

    https://www.facebook.com/aaron.feis

    1. avatar John in IN says:

      The antis really don’t get it.

      That’s the kind of person that volunteers to absorb bullets for their kids. It’s just who he was. And, yet the antis convince themselves that they hate- absolutely detest- people with that personality.

      Can you see a strident anti-gunner standing in the gap like he did?

    2. avatar Ing says:

      Why is nobody saying this?

      I get why the legacy media is ignoring it, but you’d think places like TTAG and Breitbart and so on would be all over it.

      AARON FEIS IS US. He followed libertarian pages and Paul Joseph Watson on Facebook. He posted about guns, and surely owned a few. He supported the Second Amendment. For all we know, he read TTAG, too.

      And he died trying to shield innocent people with his body because thanks to the regressive left, that was all he could do. GOD DAMN the progs and “liberals” and their government-worshiping death cult.

    3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Thanks for sharing. NRA and Concealed Nation.

      To answer TTAG’s post of a few days ago, this is why they don’t want teachers to carry. Because we would likely be in a position to have a new NRA commercial with Aaron Feis saying “I’m the NRA” after he stopped a school shooter.

  22. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Arming Teachers. Gives me a vision of showing up for work and getting a load-out from a weapons locker.

    Instead – we should allow teachers to carry to protect themselves and their students.

    If someone doesn’t want to carry, then they don’t – just like out in the real world.

    Nobody knows who is armed and who isn’t – works for me.

    Not worried about the LEO response issue. By the time they get there, it is usually to watch the shooter cap himself and count bodies.

    Hopefullly, the body count will be lower and the cops will have to use some restraint and not shoot everyone they see.

  23. avatar GunnyJim says:

    I don’t think the number of armed teachers makes any difference as long as they carry concealed. If A would-be killer thinks there is someone in the school that is armed (thus the school is not a gun free zone) he will find another gun free zone to attack. These guys may be sick but they are not necessarily stupid; when your goal is to make as big a splash as possible why go where someone may stop you before you get started.

  24. avatar Hasaf says:

    First, as I have mentioned in the past I am a teacher. With that out of the way, there are two different issues being raised. How can we increase security in our schools, and does the current model provide cost effective and quality education.

    Increasing security in our schools. Due to the training that the teachers and students have received, the number of casualties in the Rancho Tehama incident were minimized. Certainly, no casualties is the goal; however, reduced casualties is a step in the right direction. I have been looking at the teacher and administrator firearms training provided by the Buckeye Firearms Foundation called Faculty/Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response (F.A.S.T.E.R.). I do not have enough information about this program, at this time, to make any recommendations.

    There does need to be a nationally recognized program for certifying teachers and administrators with firearms. This is largely due to the insurance carriers unwillingness to cover districts that allow teachers to make their own decisions about firearms, in states where this is allowed by law. I would like to see the schools policies change from Kansas’s, “district may allow,” to Utah’s, “district may not forbid.” However, I do recognize that some states have even further to go.

    As far as the discussion of whether the current model provides cost effective and quality education, it isn’t simple. The big answer is, given all of the expectations placed on American publicly funded schools, they do pretty well. I am not going to go very far into this one because it steers us from this blogs core interest, firearms, into politics and non-firearm policies; however, I do recommend Diane Rivatch’s book Reign of Error. It is well researched and somewhat enlightening.

    1. avatar BJI says:

      “given all of the expectations placed on American publicly funded schools, they do pretty well.”
      Pretty Well!
      Why, then, is the US ranked out of the top 20 countries in test scores in mathematics, science,…?

      1. avatar Brian in WI says:

        The way I read the comment was that they do pretty well, considering many of the expectations have nothing to do with actual education of the kids. Many parents expect the schools to babysit their kids and other non education related activities.

  25. avatar former water walker says:

    Yikes…home school if you can! My son and brother do. Good results too…

  26. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I would say maybe 20% of my teachers would be good with a gun, but when I was in school, most male teachers were veterans who had been in WWII or the Korean War. A few were in Vietnam. Some of them would have been more effective than any cop.

    1. avatar TomTooDumbToAnswer says:

      So Fetard Tom I had asked one your Fetard brethren:

      So what is it about the public schools in the US that make them a “failing communistic system” in your “mind”?

      And you presumed to answer:

      “… look at old textbooks”

      This is not an answer.

      I can only presume you are too dumb to answer?

      Indiana Tom says:
      February 24, 2018 at 08:07
      So what is it about the public schools in the US that make them a “failing communistic system” in your “mind”?
      Just look at old textbooks, you will figure it out.

  27. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    Many of the teachers I know are liberals and snowflakes ( I repeat myself). But, there are a few like a friend who is a Marine veteran and takes no S*** off the alleged students. Even to the extent of taking more than one to the floor when necessary. The amusing thing is the principal supported the actions because she would have had to confront the unruly students herself otherwise.

    Even the parents didn’t complain very loud, and most all of the students were better behaved after.

    I think that any teacher or administrator who wants should be able to carry on campus, along with anyone else with a carry permit. At least we know they have been vetted.

    The liberals not so much.

  28. avatar strych9 says:

    So I’ve kinda trolled around the net (as in looked around not gone trollin’) and I have found the following:

    The root cause for opposition to arming teachers, so far as I can tell, is the (misguided) notion that this would be mandatory. That is, teachers who don’t want to carry a gun would be forced to do so. I have no idea where this idea comes from but I can say that, based on my interwebz consumption, it seems to be a pretty common idea among those who oppose the notion of teachers carrying guns.

    Now, based on my personal (and admittedly anecdotal) findings I would put forth the following: Every one of the three fears in this article is based on the idea of a non-POTG with minimal or no training carrying a gun in potentially careless manner due to said lack of training and, also not being trained, not really knowing how to use the firearm if they in fact have to.

    The counter to this is pretty clear and I would propose the following steps be taken:

    1) Medical courses should be mandatory for all faculty and staff at any learning institution. Not just First Aid and CPR but also hemorrhage control, use of chest seals, use of an nasopharyngeal airway, an Israeli Bandage etc. Basically a Dark Angle Medical course or similar. This can be done during the summer and I’m sure there are a ton of companies that would massively cut their regular prices to help out. But then again price be damned, if it saves one life, right? [Maybe we could persuade some teachers unions to put a portion of their dues towards this… just sayin’.] I don’t think that requiring 9 hours a year or so of this kind of training is that much to ask.

    2) The same training can be added to Health classes for high school students. It’s well within the purview of the class and it’s more useful than spending a week putting condoms on a damn banana or spending a full two weeks on the symptoms of heat exhaustion (I mean seriously, that’s like a day tops).

    3) It needs to be made crystal clear that the carrying of a gun is voluntary and will come with training over the summer or on weekends during the school year. What needs to be repeated until every single person on the planet is sick of hearing it is that this is voluntary the social studies teacher who doesn’t want to carry a gun is not going to be forced to do so.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      People is so dumb. Seriously, where are they getting this nonsense.

  29. avatar Colorado mom says:

    I am all for teachers, as well as parents being allowed to carry. My son attends a private Christian school and many parents carry. Not only do we carry at school but also at church. I hear all these arguments against teachers carrying and I am with the author, the risks are worth it. Additionaly, I think one of the biggest benefits of allowing teachers, parents and administrators to carry is that the school would no longer be a gun free zone. Thereby, greatly reducing the chances of the school being a target to begin with. If a spree killer is intent on a high body count, he is not going to choose a school that’s armed. So, all of the above concerns may be moot because having armed teachers would most likely greatly decrease the possibility of an active shooter situation to begin with. I carry all the time. And I feel naked and vulnerable when I don’t carry and I would not like the feeling of being a sitting duck. I don’t understand why people wouldn’t want to be able to defend themselves. I volunteer at the school and the church and I feel fortunate that I could, in theory, defend my son and the other children if necessary. But I also feel like we are already safer because so many people are armed at our school.

  30. avatar TheSophist says:

    The winning rhetoric is Choice.

    Let local districts choose. Let teachers choose to carry or not.

    #prochoice messes with the liberal head as they’re all for choice when it comes to murder, and now have to argue against choice when it comes to preventing it. Try it!

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Leave it to a sophist to come up with the exactly right kind of argument to use against the irrational. Well done.

  31. avatar cisco kid says:

    Considering the lack of training most cops get the last thing a teacher would want to have in his had would be a gun. The teacher would be gunned down immediately. Just a few weeks ago I saw on the news that a trained swat team went in on a hostage situation and ended up shooting the unarmed hostage who had no gun in his hand and was even tied up at the time. Now that took skill (sarcasm intended).

    1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

      So you only want the cops to have guns but you think the cops are not good enough to trust with guns?

      You are one seriously fucked up individual.

  32. avatar sound awake says:

    #1 reason to arm teachers:

    because the democrats dont want it

    #1 reason to do anything:

    if the democrats dont want it

    we know now that whatever democrats do say think or feel its bad for america

    check their record:

    theyre O for 1,000,000

  33. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    “Suffice it to say, myself and millions of gun owners — people who have hands-on knowledge of gun safety — believe that school shooters pose a significantly larger threat to our children than irresponsible armed teachers.”

    Even those of use who know that mass school shootings are not some sort of pandemic.

  34. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

    End the “gun free zone” myth.
    Have armed school resource officer when possible.
    Train and arm a few volunteer teachers, staff and administrators to conceal carry.
    F.A.S.T.E.R. http://fastersaveslives.org/
    Practice lockdowns and counter ambush skills.
    Learn trauma first aid. https://stopthebleedingcoalition.org/
    Save Lives.
    Drop mic. Walk off stage.

  35. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    “And there are a lot of people — especially teachers — who oppose the idea of arming any teachers. As in reject it utterly and completely.”

    Take their names down now and ask them how it’s working out a few more mass shootings later.

  36. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Simplify the argument.

    A gunfighter moving off the X, hits paper 80% of the time. Some stats say when trained gunfighter receives incoming rounds his return hit ratio drops to 20%.

    Now reverse it. Student not versed in gun culture, shooting unarmed classmates may have a hit rate of 60%. An adult returning fire does two things. First, it gets inside shooters head of shooting unarmed students while reducing accuracy. Second it increases time for students to get out of the kill cone. The trick is point towards the shooter and commit.

    Regardless of aim , return fire is the correct course of action. These are facts. The heavy lift is changing mindset. Our weekly run to the range conditions our muscle memory but does it change our mindset?

    Antis narrative gets in the way of facts but it’s up to us to simplify our position.

    Choose Life Return Fire (CLRF) is the foundation of limiting slaughter. All other elements are building blocks to that statement. Choosing to carry, choose to lawfully defend ourselves and others. Choose Training.

    CLRF preserves our pro gun position, contributes to limiting campus murder, and exposed antis counter arguments as false solutions.

  37. avatar DJ says:

    It works in Israel.

  38. avatar Aaron says:

    There are NO reasons why “teachers” should not be trusted with guns anymore than police should not be trusted with guns.

    are police a different species? are they higher beings? IMO police are just humans with 4 things: training (varies), purpose (also varies), authority, and equipment. I’d say a trained volunteer with a sense of purpose, authority, and the right equipment is as good as any cop.

    sure, many teachers are useless libtards who can’t get a real job and became teachers simply because “education” is the easiest of all college majors. but many teachers are great people, some have actual REAL college degrees (e.g.: something other than “education” or “studies”), some are decorated combat veterans, some are probably avid shooters on their free time, some are probably former cops with relevant experience.

  39. avatar Craig in IA says:

    Someone above suggested not arming teachers (I”d include all school personnel), just let those who have permits carry at work. Yep.

    Now a couple other things… I taught public ed for 40 years, and yes, primary problem I can see is changing the mindset of school personnel to see that the only choice is to squeeze a couple off on a student if said student is reaking death and destruction. Of course ALL of the others posting here would have absolutely no problem doing that- like the uniformed, armed school resource officer at Parkland who wouldn’t engage Cruz… Never tell until it’s upon you.

    Most of the other issues addressed by Farago are non problems if the weapon is always secured on the person- not left in a drawer, locker, purse, jacket in the closet, etc. As for being taken out by some arriving SWAT team: by the time they’d arrive on campus things would be long finished and the situation secured with good guys obvious. Of greater note (for teachers who’d opt to carry) is the fact that after one of them caps a bad guy, his/her career is over, there’ll be no working in that school or district any longer regardless of the situation that led to the shooting and how justified it was. And some other dsitrict hiring a now-known killer? That would need to be stressed up front.

    1. avatar rick3 says:

      “Of greater note (for teachers who’d opt to carry) is the fact that after one of them caps a bad guy, his/her career is over, there’ll be no working in that school or district any longer regardless of the situation that led to the shooting and how justified it was.”

      I find that hard to believe. Just imagine if there was an armed teacher in that Florida high school, who had shot & stopped the bad guy after said bad guy has shot 6 students. You really believe that, instead of being proclaimed a hero, this teacher would be formally/informally “blackballed” in that school or district? I don’t see it.

      1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

        Rick. I’ve heard it referred to as ‘The Mark of Cain’. Once it is known that you’ve taken a life, no matter how justified, others treat you differently. It might not be black balled, as such, but it has an effect on your relations with others.

        With the passage of time the effect dims a little. But in the back of all your co-workers, friends and family’s minds is the knowledge that you are a proven killer.

      2. avatar Craig in ia says:

        You’ve got to be kidding… It happens to cops all the time. (Ever hear of the gentle giant?) I really believe most of the problems we have dealing with anything in the education world is that people who don’t herd around vast numbers of kids on a regular basis have no idea what goes on inside their heads. Parents (and most teachers are parents, too) deal with a few they live with every day and there are still a lot of screwed up kids because of what the adults have allowed them to become. Somewhere along the line in the 1970s adults quit raising kids like they were little men and women “in training”.

  40. avatar Jim Macklin says:

    The fact is that “real security” depends not on how many students are on a school campus, but how many floors, how many rooms need to be secured. Having only one is “none” in security.
    If 10-20-30% of the teachers who want to be armed were allowed the killer could expect to encounter somebody in almost any school. Maybe it will work?
    Obviously the GFSZ has not worked for 40 years except to get people disarmed for their own defense.

  41. avatar Chaps says:

    Might trust the teacher more with a gun than what they teach anymore.

  42. avatar 36IDRedleg says:

    Robert: I applaud your analysis. This is a perfect example of CRITICAL THINKING. It is a skill that is taught to military leaders every day in all of our service academies, Staff Colleges, War Colleges, and other service schools. It is a cogent and well thought out set of arguments based upon logic. There is never a perfect solution to many problems. But, it may be cold but your recommendations will reduce attacks, death, and injuries. Sadly Critical Thinking is not well taught in our public school system and colleges. Be careful where you send your kids and money.

    Contrast this to the emotion-based thinking of liberalism. It is devoid of logic, and even common sense of the experienced.

  43. avatar Bill in Utah says:

    Utah has allowed concealed carry in public schools and on university campuses by permit holder for more than 20 years. Teachers, administrators, employees, parents and students over 18 with concealed firearm permits can and do carry here. The school administrators can not ask if a teacher or employee carries.

    So far I think there has been negligent discharge once damaging a toilet.

    I’m glad my kids and now grand kids attend schools in Utah.

  44. avatar binder says:

    The police won’t know who’s who when they bring their guns to stop a spree killing!

    Well, there is something funny about that. It was discovered that if a plain clothes cop out his badge, there was a VERY good chance that he would get blasted by responding SWAT. So it is a good idea to teach the teachers NOT to hold out their arms at a cop with something shiny in your hand.

  45. avatar Joe R. says:

    The same argument(s) would sh_t-can CC.

    Good thing they’re not born-out in-practice.

    Israel does do armed teachers, lotta kids are armed too.
    http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/01/armed-teachers-stop-terrorist-attack-in.html

  46. avatar Ken B says:

    Why should “Teachers” get a right to carry at work when the general population generally cannot? How about the same right for all. Either everyone can carry or none.

  47. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    “I can’t find a single example of a police officer shooting an armed good guy by mistake in any defensive gun use”

    Really? Because it JUST happened on Valentine’s Day in Amarillo, Texas, at the Faith City Mission, the very same day as the Florida shooting.

    https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/Texas-police-shoot-man-who-disarmed-possible-12704202.php

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      I can see how that one would be lost in all the media noise that day. Do you know of any others? I ask because that is the first time I’ve heard of police shooting a civilian who has a gun who is responding to a criminal.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email