MOTION #68: THIS HOUSE WOULD ARM
TEACHERS
This debate refers
specifically to the United States of America but many of the arguments would be
applicable to other countries around the world. In recent years, incidents such
as the massacre at Columbine High School, where two students gunned down their
classmates, has given rise to the debate over whether teachers in the USA
should be allowed to carry arms in the classroom. Supporters claim it means
tragic massacres of students could be avoided if teachers could defend
themselves against armed fanatics to the same degree. These massacres sparked
off a debate about whether teachers are in a position where it is their
responsibility to protect their vulnerable charges. And if so what possible
ways there are to enable them to do so.
The second amendment
of the US constitution maintains that “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”. This is nearly always taken as meaning all
citizens have the right to bear arms, allowing teachers and others in positions
of authority over vulnerable groups to be armed would be a natural extension of
this entitlement.
The alternative
suggestion for preventing such tragic incidents will not be covered much in
this debate that there needs to be more restriction of guns. Advocates for gun
controls claim that the USA’s love affair with guns is the very reason why
incidents such as Columbine happened in the first place, as the problem lies
far more in the ease with which volatile groups, such as teenagers and young
people, can access guns. If arms laws were made far stricter then it would
reduce the risk of on-campus shootings and as a result, remove the need for
teachers to protect themselves and their students. As a result of the entrenched
arms culture in the USA, power of the gun lobby, and second amendment this
debate takes as a starting point that such restrictions are unlikely to happen.
Therefore the most logical way to reverse the issues raised by incidents like
Columbine is to meet them with equal means, of which allowing teachers to carry
arms would be one. On balance, this would mean a greater reduction in the harms
inflicted in US society by guns as a whole.
The mechanism for this debate would therefore
be a simple one. The only people allowed to carry guns in school environments
would be registered teachers and head teachers, who have certified gun licences
and who have undertaken special courses in how to carry arms safely in a school
environment.
We would allow individual states to
decide whether or not to grant schools the authority to carry arms, defined as
firearms like handguns, and excluding other weapons such as tasers. Such a law
would allow individual high schools to form their own policies on whether or
not teachers can carry guns – therefore if individual teachers feel they cannot
be in one environment or another, they are free to move schools within that
state. Freedom of conscience can therefore be combined with an adherence to the
second amendment and a concern for classroom safety in American schools.
Pros
|
Cons
|
Arming teachers would mean safer schools. If school teachers, as people in positions of authority
over vulnerable groups, were permitted to carry arms then it would guarantee
greater protection for children. Incidents in recent years such as the
massacre at Columbine High School have proven that a significant risk exists
of school children gaining access to guns and using them against their
classmates. The carnage could have been prevented if the teachers present had
been able to defend themselves and the children in their care as teachers
would be able to act as a first line of defence. Furthermore, having schools
as arms-free environments specifically makes them a target, those looking for
targets are more likely to choose schools because they are less likely to
meet armed resistance. Incidents include a school in Lincoln, Nebraska where
a 17-year-old shot his vice-principal before killing himself. Lawmaker Mark
Christensen, who had previously been opposed to teachers carrying arms,
introduced legislation in January this year after the incident. It
illustrates how the potential for harm could be reduced if adults in
responsible positions could defend themselves and those in their care.
|
The logical fallacy here is the assumption that
teachers will always have pupils’ best interests at heart. There’s little to
stop children from becoming extremely vulnerable if they are under the
supervision of someone who could turn on them. Gun attacks like Columbine and
Virginia Tech are often by people whose potential for violence was not
spotted by anyone until it was too late. People in positions of authority are
not always reliable or rational, and no amount of safety checks can guarantee
that some teachers will not abuse the powers they have. This measure would
simply increase the potential threat from those who have been authorised to
carry guns in schools.
|
Not all schools have police available to protect them. All schools and schoolchildren need to be protected
yet not all schools are anywhere near a source of protection. Arming some
teachers is most urgent in areas police provision is scarce due to diminished
funds. Places like Harrold county in Texas have a sheriff’s office situated
17 miles away, and unlike more urban areas they cannot afford to hire
district police officers. With the law enforcement officers so far away a lot
of children could be killed before there could be any possibility of response
from any police of law enforcement agencies. Arming teachers in predominantly
rural areas of the USA is therefore a logical and necessary step to protect
schools that do not already have dedicated protection.
|
This simply shows a need to either expand the law
enforcement agencies or else have locals who are deputised. There is no need
to turn schools into an armed environment in order to ensure that someone who
is responsible who is armed is close enough to respond to any crisis at a
school.
|
The Second Amendment. When it comes down to it, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the
American constitution. This right applies just as much to teachers as it does
to anyone else. Having a right to bear arms means there is always going to
the threat that one person can draw and use a weapon against another. The
best way to counter-act such a danger is to meet it with equal means, as the
culture of arms-bearing in the USA is too entrenched to try methods that
involving scaling back gun-usage or enforcing much stricter arms control. Any
attempt to do so would likely be struck down by the United States Supreme
Court just as it declared the restrictions on handguns that were in place in
Washington DC. Therefore the best way to protect the most vulnerable in US
society is to deploy the means that are encouraged and protected by the
constitution.
|
Why shouldn’t they
carry guns if teachers can? Surely in such uncertain situations as Columbine
they should also carry the right to protect their classmates? Even if
children aren’t legally meant to carry them anyway then what’s to stop moral
gray areas from occurring in situations of self-protection for an entire
class/school?
Taking this to its natural conclusion, what is to stop
teachers’ guns simply falling into the wrong hands? A child could steal a
teacher’s gun and use it against a classmate, causing unintentional or
intentional fatalities, arming teachers simply makes such events possible
rather than protecting against them. The logic of trying to make schools less
vulnerable to violent attacks by introducing more firearms is hugely flawed.
|
Teachers need protection just as much as students. An incident in Medford, Oregon in 2007 illustrated how
teachers need to be able to protect themselves as well as their students. Gun
lobbyists claimed teacher Jane Doe’s reasons for wanting to be armed while
teaching were based on the restraining order against her ex-husband, who had
made threats against her and her children. Although local laws dictated that
only law enforcement officers could brings guns onto a school campus, she
challenged it on the grounds of her own personal safety. In a country like
the USA where ordinary civilians can own guns, people often feel the need to
carry arms for the sake of self-protection. If people are allowed to do this
in their own homes, then if the threats persist while they are at work by
extension they should still be allowed to exercise self-protection.
|
That teachers may also sometimes need protection does
not alter the debate. They could equally be protected by having better police
services and officers closer to schools. If teacher needs a gun for
protection from someone threatening them then they are putting the children
they are responsible for in danger. If Jane Doe’s ex husband had come after
her and both had been armed her students could very easily have been caught
in the crossfire.
|
Schools such as those in the county of Harrold, TX have already introduced laws allowing
teachers to carry pistols, but largely in a concealed fashion. This therefore
leaves children unawares and thus not distracted by seeing teachers
prominently carrying guns. Furthermore, with teachers carrying concealed
arms, any would-be attackers would be thrown by not knowing who to shoot
first, which would not be the case if police officers were the first on the
scene.
|
Children are
impressionable. Allowing teachers
to carry arms in school could mean that very young children could easily
become acclimatised to the idea that carrying a gun and ultimately gun usage
is ok. Surely the way to prevent incidents like Columbine from happening is
to teach children about the potentially destructive and fatal consequences of
gun usage? For elementary/primary school-age children, it would be difficult
to separate the idea that it’s ok for teachers to always carry guns but not
for anyone else.
|
The chances of accidents would be miniscule as teacher
would be trained to carry the gun and would keep it with them at all times
when in the classroom so there would be no chance of the students playing
with the gun. The deterrence effect of having guns in school is likely to
mean that the number of shootings will go down rather than up. Finally if it
was an armed teacher who perpetrated the shooting then they would have been
able to commit that atrocity regardless of whether s/he was allowed to carry
a gun in school.
|
Guns in schools
might be used in circumstances other than defense. Having guns in the classroom will more than likely
increase the chances of gun related violence in schools. It would increase
the chance of gun related accidents; although only a very small chance there
would previously have been no chance. It may well also increase the number of
shootings; people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to be shot,
although there is no way of knowing if the effect would be the same in the
classroom as on the street. Finally it is ignoring the possibility that those
who are to carry guns for the school children’s protection may at some point
turn the gun on their charges. Teaching can be a very frustrating job and the
teacher may get very angry with individual students, allowing teachers to
carry guns would greatly increase the risk of an unpremeditated shooting
against on a schoolchild.
|
Teachers in places where the scheme has already been
piloted have received training from private security firms. In Harrold
county, teachers have also been provided with special ammunition that avoids
ricocheting and therefore minimises the threat of students being caught in
crossfire. Other schools in more urban parts of states like Texas,
particularly those suffering a high level of gang violence, already have
their own police forces. Many American schools are therefore used to having
an environment where arms usage is the norm. It is therefore hard to argue
that introducing armed protection in a different form, aka through teachers
rather than police officers, would result in an increased level of risk.
|
Children would be
caught in the crossfire. We need to remember
that we’re most likely dealing with threats to young people by other young
people here. If teachers were granted the right of ‘shoot to kill,’ as the
mechanism would imply, of anyone they found threatening, the consequences to
completely innocent people in a crossfire, or merely troubled youngsters that
could be rehabilitated if simply subdued, could be tragic and fatal.
Ultimately, teachers are not police officers and are thus not equipped to
take out an armed criminal in the same way. As the legislative director of
the Houston Association of Teachers out it, “We are trained to teach and
educate – not to tame the Wild West.”
|
The opposition’s point is a rather speculative one, as
you could apply this argument to teachers in general, or anyone in positions
of power over more vulnerable groups, such as nurses or doctors. Just because
a minority choose to abuse (such as with the paedophile scandals in reported
in some public US high schools) that does not mean everyone in the teaching
profession should have the right to protect those in their care revoked.
|
How could arming
teachers be regulated? If teachers can
bear arms, then what’s to stop other people in the school environment in
contact with children, such as janitors, from demanding they should too, or
even getting hold of them illicitly? Many of them won’t have been certified
or checked, and as such there is no guarantee that the system of only
allowing teaching staff to carry them could be fully regulated. This is
particularly the case if janitors, cafeteria workers or cleaning staff have
private gun licences of their own. The result is that children could be in an
environment where those not licensed to carry arms around them would have
greater opportunities to do so, thereby increasing the threat to children. It
would be difficult to monitor which staff are bringing guns into school
without a lot of investment in searches and detectors – money that could have
paid for professional security. It is thus arguable that the proposition’s
mechanism does not stand.
|
0 Comments