Nothing is more dangerous than the threat of being attacked by armed gunmen in schools. The school board, educators, and parents are arguing about whether should teachers be armed or not. One side believes arming teachers should be made legal in the state of California because, every single person has a right to defend themselves, the right with it to bear arms, many school districts are in rural areas far from such law enforcement protections, armed teachers help prevent emergency situations, and armed teachers would have minimized mass shootings.
The other side believes arming teachers should be continued to be illegal in the state of California because, guns are dangerous, purchasing ammunition and guns for every teacher and training is expensive, teachers themselves do not want to be armed, and too much responsibility is being put on them. The current law works the best for the schools because, even if the teachers are trained, guns are still dangerous, they can still use the guns improperly and a teacher’s job is to educate future leaders for the country, not policing. Arming teachers should be continued to be illegal in the state of California.
Some states allow teachers and staffs to have weapons in schools, consequently, accidents happened. Teachers used the guns improperly and caused damage to themselves as well as innocent people. The great risk to children does not come from traffic accidents, but from carelessly handguns belonging to the adults in their lives. Guns should not be held in schools because, even great men could generate mistakes. In the article, Person writes, “Last month, at Price Middle School in Atlanta, a student opened fire, shooting another child in the neck before he was disarmed by a school resource officer” (Person).
This is an example of how dangerous guns are as Atlanta only allows teachers to bring concealed weapons, but the student could still get the gun. Put a weapon in the hands of a person who doesn’t know its consequences will cause several injuries and even deaths. In the article, Richinick writes, “A teacher in Utah accidentally shot herself in the leg Thursday inside an elementary school building” (Richinick). There was also “a professor at Idaho State University in Pocatello accidentally fired his concealed gun and shot himself in the foot” (Schwarz).
Teachers should not be armed because, they could use the guns improperly. They could hurt themselves and even innocent people. The accidents in schools are largely due to armed teachers. There are far more reasons to keep guns out of schools. Teachers themselves do not want to be armed, therefore, arming teachers should be continued to be illegal in the state of California. The majority of them said they don’t hope to be armed. Guns should not be in the hands of who don’t wish to hold them. It’s unreason to arm teachers when they don’t desire to.
In the article, Montgomery writes, “Rep. John Legg, R-New Port Richey, who has taught in the classroom and now is a charter school administrator, said, “I’m not a fan of solving violence by escalating violence on an elementary school campus” (Montgomery). As the lesson that teachers always tries to teach their students, violence is not a way to solve violence. Arming teachers would also give the atrocious messages to the students that being violent is fine, which isn’t.
In the article, the author writes, “72. 4% of educators say they would be unlikely to bring a firearm to school if they were allowed to do so. 8% of teachers, faculty and education support staff opposed a proposal to arm teachers” (Guns and School Safety Survey Results). Some teachers are elderly. Many of them even have mental health issues. Not every teacher will successfully acquire the skills required to bring guns to school. Arming teachers would not reduce violent crime rate if strangers come to one of those rooms.
Furthermore, arming teachers should be continued to be illegal in the state of California because, too much responsibility is being put on the teachers. They don’t have the responsibility of protecting “students” or “people around them. Teachers already have tons of work to do and don’t have to also be securities. The training would also take them a lot of time. In the article, Montgomery writes, “School Board Chairman April Griffin said “I want less guns in schools, not more, and certainly those guns should be in the hands of certified law enforcement officers. I don’t think our teachers ever intended to be first responders, their job is to educate” (Montgomery). Teachers spend five days a week in school, besides that, they also need to drive to school me grade students’ assignments, and prepare what to teach for the next days.
If they got to train to be able to hold guns, that will take them tons of time and they won’t have much time left for themselves and their families. In the article, Hall writes, “Teachers should focus on teaching. Let’s leave the responsibility for the safety and security of our students, staff and school sites to the law enforcement professionals,” said the members of the Glynn County Board of Education” (Hall). Securities are trained better through life threaten crisis. They should be able to handle strangers coming to school.
It’s more dangerous to have the guns inside school campuses than to prevent dangers from the outside. We should have the security guard all around the campus to prevent strangers from coming in. A strong argument from the Affirmative side is that everyone has a right to protect themselves. This is not fully true because, having the right to protect themselves doesn’t mean having the right to cause danger to innocent people as well. They believe that arming teachers should be made legal because, every single person has a right with it to bear arms as long as the guns are concealed.
They believe that it’s the law, which is the Second Amendment itself. In the article, Sunday, Salam, and Oham writes, “The students were having their prayers around 7:30a. m. when the armed men suddenly showed up, threatening to shoot anyone who dared to move. On hearing the gunshots, the students ran in different directions for their dear lives” (Sunday, Salam, Oham). They believe that if they had armed teachers, the teachers could have been able to prevent the threat. Strangers wouldn’t come if they know there were armed teachers.
They are wrong because, atrocious situations may appear no matter the teachers were armed or not, if they were allowed to bring guns to the classroom, they would need to put the guns somewhere safe to prevent students from getting them and that will cause them difficulty assessable when the shooter comes in. By the time the teachers getting their guns, they might already get shot. In the article, Grossman writes, “Parents of Utah schoolchildren have no way to tell which teachers carry a handgun. By law, Utah gun permit records are closed to the public” (Grossman).
They believe that if the guns are concealed, it may not cause the threat of kids getting the guns. Children could not touch the gun just by teachers putting them away. This is wrong because, there is no guarantee that the teacher would always remember to lock their door when they get out. This statement also opposes the argument that armed teachers may prevent school shootings that gunmen won’t come to the schools knowing that there are armed teachers. Armed teachers will not prevent mass shootings in schools. It can even cause more danger to the students and teachers themselves.