Arming Teachers in Schools

Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses?
The continued spate of school shootings indicates that more needs to be done to help protect people on campuses. While there is always a chorus of voices who proclaim that guns should be banned, the fact that the Constitution guarantees people the right to bear arms is one that has to be acknowledged. Considering that this right is important to many Americans, one solution is that teachers be allowed to carry guns so long as they pass background checks or have military training. This paper will show why guns should be permitted on college campuses, primarily for teachers who undergo thorough background checks or who have military backgrounds.
Arming teachers is not a novel idea or an unheard of one. In fact, as Shah points out, teachers are already being armed in several parts of the country in response to the escalated through of school shootings. More than 15 states permit teachers to carry guns in the classroom—a law that has been motivated by tragedies like that which occurred at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech.
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting, for instance, many gun advocates called for an end to gun-free zones on college campuses: their argument was that if anyone had been armed, the shooter Seung-Hui Cho, who killed several people that day, would have been stopped in his tracks well before the violence was permitted to escalate (Siebel). The argument against ending gun-free zones on college campuses is that more guns do not necessarily make more people safe: on the contrary they create an environment in which a sense of risk is elevated (Siebel). So which is right—those calling for more people to be armed on colleges, or those calling for fewer guns in general?
The reality is that there is a heightened sense of risk whether or not campuses are gun-free zones: everyone is aware of the possibility that today could be the day a school shooter shows up. There are simply too many people in the world with mental health issues that are not being treated—and mental health is the primary reason school shooters lash out and attack others on campuses (Breggin). One of the main triggers for purveyors of school violence is prescription drugs—specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) medications that individuals are prescribed by doctors whenever they suffer from a mental health problem, such as depression or suicidal thoughts (Kauffman). These SSRIs have dangerous side effects—“more risks than benefits” as Kauffman notes (7). Yet because the pharmaceutical industry is so powerful in America, they continue to be prescribed—and the fallout is that unstable teens continue to wreak havoc on school campuses. They are not getting the treatment they need. Instead, they are getting patches—band-aids—in the form of pharmaceuticals that have a much riskier impact on their minds in the long-run. The public is not unaware of this risk of unstable persons populating schools across America, even if they do not know of the triggers or the underlying mental health issues responsible for this crisis (Thompson et al.). At any rate, they are aware that the problem is not guns in general, as a mentally unstable person can commit acts of violence in numerous different ways. However, in a gun-free zone, it is less likely that anyone there will be able to stop him.
For that reason, it is a reasonable idea to consider arming teachers who are able to pass a thorough background check or who have military training. Teachers can be considered responsible, mature and accountable. They can be trusted to educate and lead in the classroom. Today, when schools have to do more than educate, when they have to be mindful of taking safety precautions and ensuring that students under their care are safe and secure, it is important that educators have the tools to make this happen. A plan that relies solely on the response of campus police may be insufficient as Thompson et al. have shown. These plans are often slow to be implemented and unreliable in the first few minutes of a school shooting, where the maximum amount of violence can be inflicted. To be confined in a school building where a shooter is at large without any way to defend oneself or to help defend others is a losing proposition. Such a situation is not one in which many people want to be stuck (Thompson et al.). Nor is it one in which people should be expected to feel safe. Teachers especially should be made to feel that they are in control of their environment. As leaders and heads of their classes, they also have a responsibility to their students: they have to make sure the environment they offer is safe and protected. If, however, the only means of guaranteeing safety and defense is somewhere else on campus—i.e., the campus police station—this guarantee is hard to sell and hard for others to feel. On the other hand, if a trusted and responsible teacher is permitted to carry a gun, the promise of immediate defense is more palpable. An armed teacher either who has passed a rigorous background check or who has received military training is a teacher who is in command of his or her environment and one who can mount a defense against an attack.
Arming teachers is not a unique solution and thus should not be considered as extreme or outside the norm. Roughly a third of U.S. states already say it is okay and lawful for teachers to arm themselves (Shah) and many several other leave it up to local lawmakers. This shows that at least half the population is more than fine with the idea of teachers being armed. After all, teachers are expected to be responsible and in control—and what better way to show control than to be armed and ready for a possible threat to one’s life and property? Arming teachers on college campuses is a good solution that benefits stakeholders.
As Thompson et al. have shown, there is a need to provide better security and defense for college students on campuses. The current provisions are inadequate. For funding and budgetary reasons, colleges cannot install a campus policeman in every classroom or building—but they can permit teachers to be armed. They can also supply a provision that obliges any teacher who wants to be armed in college to undergo firearm training and gain certification that is approved by the school. This would further ensure that the teacher is armed and capable of wielding a firearm at the designated time in the face of an existential threat.
This method of protection would also address the issue of risk: taking guns away is not working as school shootings occur in gun-free zones for two reasons: 1) the perpetrator has a mental health issue that stems from not receiving the kind of effective treatment needed, as was the case in the Virginia Tech shooting (Jensen); 2) guns are part of the American way of life: the Constitution has guaranteed that every citizen has the right to bear arms. While it is possible that this protection may be taken away at some point in the future, depending on the winds of political change, the reality is that for now and the foreseeable future, guns are going to continue to be available. That means those with mental health issues may continue to obtain them. And that means that school leaders and authorities are going to have to start taking the necessary precautions to address such risk. The best way to do that is to get proactive and defensive: since planting a campus policeman in every room is not feasible, teachers should be allowed to arm themselves and provide security for themselves, their classrooms and the student body.
By allowing teachers to be armed, college campuses can be assured of at least a reduction in risk. An attack may still occur, but if more individuals are armed on campus, the likelihood of an attack taking place and continuing for an extended period of time as happened at Virginia Tech is less likely. Teachers who are armed and trained in tactical response can be on the scene and ready to engage an attacker and end an assault in quick order.
It is not a perfect solution by any means—but this is not a perfect world, and perfect solutions are rarely possible. It is a better solution, however; it is a better way to approach the issue of school shootings in colleges because it puts power back into the hands of those who are most at risk—students and teachers. It allows them to take ownership of their own lives and safety and confront threats in an effective manner. By getting behind this idea, schools could ensure effective implementation by having teachers receive proper training in response tactics.
In conclusion, the problem of school violence is not going to go away anytime soon—and that means colleges have to start getting better prepared. Hiring more law enforcement protection is not likely to be practical. Arming teachers, on the other hand, could be just the right solution as it uses assets that are already there in every classroom and ensures that they have the right training in how to use a firearm in a situation where a threat has become manifested. More accountability and practicality is required, as the research shows, with respect to how schools address the problem of shootings. Arming teachers would be an effective, practical and appropriate way to address the issue.
Works Cited
Breggin, Peter R. “Suicidality, violence and mania caused by selective serotonin reuptake
inhibitors (SSRIs): A review and analysis.” International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, vol. 16, no. 1 (2004): 31-49.
Jenson, Jeffrey M. "Aggression and violence in the United States: Reflections on the
Virginia Tech shootings." Social Work Research 31.3 (2007): 131-134.
Kauffman, Joel M. “Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) drugs: More risks than
benefits.” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, vol. 14, no. 1 (2009): 7-12
Shah, Nirvi. "Teachers Already Armed in Some Districts." Education Week 32.21 (2013):
1-14.
Siebel, Brian J. "The Case against Guns on Campus." Geo. Mason UCRLJ 18 (2007):
319.
Thompson, Amy, et al. "Reducing firearm-related violence on college campuses—Police
chiefs' perceptions and practices." Journal of American College Health 58.3 (2009): 247-254.