Over the last 10 days, I’ve heard a lot about “arming teachers.” It is something my wife brought up to me.
I need to say that is the shitiest rhetoric on this subject.
Are we talking about taking teachers who have never shot a gun before, and may even be anti gun themselves, and giving them one training session and a gun and sticking them back in the classroom?
Because that is a terrible fucking idea.
I know that “IDPA/USPSA isn’t a firefight, that stuff will get you killed” (/sarc/) but to use it as an example, when I got back into it, it took me a while to get over the “first stage jitters.” The timer went *BEEP* and erased all the stage plans I had made during the walk through. If I don’t shoot for a little bit, I’ll still get a little jumpy on the first stage. I had the chance to talk to a professional shooter and one of the things he said is that one of the big things that separates a pro from am amateur is having had that timer go *BEEP* so many times that you stay focused and remain collected every time.
And that’s in a game. Make it life and death when you are not expecting it and it’s going to be worse.
So a teacher who has never shot before, sent off to do two days worth of training, and hasn’t shot since is going to be a hair above worthless.
On the other hand are we talking about letting teachers or administrators who already have CCW permits and who want to carry, carry in schools? Will we be providing them with additional training?
That is something I can get behind. That is a person who has some familiarity with guns. Who is more likely to go out on a weekend and shoot and maintain a minimal skill level.
Remember, the Israeli teacher carrying a rifle on a field trip had just spent two years on active service in the Israeli army.
I know the antis will lie and distort the truth at every turn. They do it every day. That’s why we need to control the language of this conversation.
“Arm the teachers” sounds unpalatable. It conjures up an image of forcing sweet, little, old, Mrs Crabapple to turn into John McClane, and sounds agressive (forcing guns on people who don’t want them).
Something more along the lines of “allow teachers with CCW permit to carry in schools” is entirely honest. It’s less aggressive and the positive statistics on our side.
I really want pro gun people who get media interviews to stop saying “arm the teachers.” If we let the antis dictate the language, we will lose.
In my opinion, the only teachers that should be carrying armed are those that want to and have had training. Otherwise, it should be some type of armed security that (unlike in Florida) will actually engage the threat.
Well said!
We have to keep on message, and the only way to do that effectively is to be precise when we speak.
Check out http://fastersaveslives.org
Training that started in Ohio with help from Buckeye Firearms Association, now spread to Colorado.
I’m not affiliated with them, just an interested Buckeye.
After 9/11, even with the “enhanced screening” by the newly formed TSA and the revamped and expanded Air Marshal program, another program was implemented. That program, the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program, armed civilian airline pilots. The program was 100% voluntary and the only cost to the tax payers was the training program in NM. The same program that was already used to train Air Marshals. There was, of course, hiccups and complaints from pilots about being accepted into the program but the actual training was always praised as relevant and “top notch”.
I would like to see a similar program offered to teachers that is geared toward the unique challenges of dealing with an active shooter situation in a school from a realistic, non-LEO perspective. There are programs that have already been set up by the private sector that address these specific threats for those in the few states that do not prohibit armed self defense on school grounds.
A separate, school specific program, that allows qualified trained staff and teachers to be able to train together (with SRO’s if they are also on campus) in a team tactics sort of environment would increase the chance of successfully ending or outright repelling an attack.
Realistically, this approach will not end school shootings and the general public may not be able to stomach the inevitable ND injuries/deaths that, while extrodinarily rare, will be pushed as examples of ultimate program failure by an anti-self defense media. This approach will however, imho, drastically reduce the number of fatalities to the point that crazy kids will start shooting up other soft targets instead.
The first real step toward ending mass murder in this country is by admitting that something a lot deeper than firearms is causing these atrocities to occur. This trend of mass murderers is a societal disease that will not be reversed until a drastic change previals that moves toward respecting/valuing individual thought and opinion as well as individual human life.
Along the same lines of not saying “arm the teachers”, there would probably be no additional expense to the school system because any teacher who already has a CCW permit would have a concealable handgun that they’re familiar with and would prefer to carry.
Nobody ever specifies if their idea for arming teachers is that teachers would leave their classroom and try to clear the building, or is it that teachers would cover the door of their classroom and protect the students in their room.
[…] said it before, I hate the phrase “arming teachers.” I do not want to put a gun in the hands of someone who doesn’t want it. I am not drafting […]