After
recent events in Florida, people are starting to throw around the idea of
arming teachers. As both an honorably discharged member of the Army Reserves
and a college instructor, I will say this idea won’t work. Even worse, it will end
up leading to catastrophes. There is some validity to arming teachers. That’s
not the problem. The problem is that this is being viewed by some, and may
likely be legislated, as an easy solution to the problem. Arming teachers, if
it happens, will end up failing due to improper implementation.
THE TWO MINDSETS
Using
a firearm, particularly in a panic situation that may require killing or
harming another person, takes a totally different mindset than teaching. The
idea that a teacher can simply flip the switch, from compassionate teacher to
trained warrior, at a moment’s notice is foolish. Simply giving a teacher a gun
won’t help, because the average teacher would freeze if the situation arose
where action was demanded. Using a gun to defend takes training—extensive
training. The training would likely be expensive and ongoing. It’s not uncommon
to hear stories of schools without textbooks or heat. So, where is the money
going to come for this expensive training?
A GUN IS A GUN
Arming
teachers puts guns into the school. Could a teacher’s gun end up being used
against that teacher? Or, against other students? Could a teacher be stripped
of a gun by a violent student?
Teaching
requires an immense amount of focus—enough focus that a teacher would lose
focus on the gun they are carrying. It’s simply impossible to teach (at least
properly) and remain a vigilant warrior simultaneously. Until the switch to vigilant
warrior has been turned on, that teacher’s gun is vulnerable. If violence
happens, the teacher with the gun may become the target—the main point of
attack for a perpetrator!
DO COMBAT SOLDIERS SHOOT TO KILL?
There
have been some experts that suggest that combat soldiers—people highly trained
to handle a weapon and take a life—often deliberately overshoot when placed in
combat. This is likely particularly true with their first experience in combat.
The debate on this is controversial, so you can do your own research, but it
does raise doubts about a teacher’s ability to fire, especially during their first
round of combat.
Combat.
Let’s just be honest. When a shooter enters a school property, that premise has
now become a combat zone. But, it’s a different kind of combat zone. When a
soldier is sent to war, they know they are in a combat zone. It becomes a part
of their psyche, constantly in the back of their mind. A teacher doesn’t drive
to work expecting combat. Their psyche isn’t in that place, and this may make
them less prepared to enter combat.
IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE?
Instead
of arming teachers, a more viable solution may simply be putting a few armed
guards (whether police or military) on school grounds. Being a vigilant
defender means coming to work with that mindset. It’s not a switch that can
easily be flipped. The switch already needs to be on when a crisis arises.
Even
military personnel and police would need significant training—not near the
training a teacher would require—but still significant training.
CONCLUSIONS
Arming
teachers may be part of the solution, but it isn’t the easy solution some
people paint it to be. An armed teacher may be a deterrent; but, can an armed
teacher become a defender in a crisis situation quickly enough to either
eradicate or minimize casualties? Not necessarily. It would take someone with
the right psychological makeup combined with intense and ongoing training.
Without proper training, the average teacher with a gun would freeze at the
moment of crisis.
No comments:
Post a Comment