Teachers are an essential part of a student’s experience at school. They are tasked with the enormous responsibility of creating a safe environment for all students and fostering a relationship of trust that not everyone gets the privilege of having at home. One can only imagine the detrimental impact that undermining this relationship would have, if one of the only support pillars for a student has a lethal weapon in their possession at all times.
With a growing number of school shootings and the continued heartbreak that plagues communities as a result of lives lost, a controversial proposition has led to heated discussion.
According to an article by NBC News, Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, believes the state of Texas should ensure school employees are armed. Additionally, House Bill 3 (H. B. 3) requires that an armed officer is present on each campus.
However, the Dispatch’s stance is that the solution to disrupt this cycle of gun violence and trauma should not involve the very weapon that causes it in the first place.
The right answer to this ongoing argument is clear: you can’t fight fire with fire.
Attempting to combat this widespread issue with the same weapon that causes it is ineffective and unsafe. In fact, it doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the actions that need to be taken in order to stop this problem once and for all.
If an entire team of armed, trained law enforcement couldn’t stop one teenager with a gun at the Uvalde Elementary School shooting, how could an armed teacher make any more of an impact? Bigger policy change that actually addresses the complexities of this prevalent issue is necessary, if any significant improvements are going to be made.
One reason why combating gun violence by arming teachers is wrong, is because various real-life instances have shown that when trying to de-escalate situations, the addition of more weapons is often ineffective in resolving the circumstance.
For example, according to the Texas Tribune, it took a team of roughly 376 armed officers in Uvalde over an hour to stop a shooting carried out by one teenager with a semi-automatic weapon. Because the sole purpose of these semi-automatic weapons is to kill indiscriminately in circumstances such as war, a handgun poses virtually no match to the destruction these highly-dangerous weapons cause.
Furthermore, assault weapons similar to AR-15s are often used in mass shootings such as these and can be accessed by a process simple enough for an 18 year-old to follow. The ease with which these weapons can be obtained and their lethal nature poses the question of what impact a teacher with a handgun would even have against someone armed with a weapon this deadly.
Additionally, adding more guns to the equation doesn’t address the issue of how these weapons are continuously falling into the wrong hands.
Another reason why the solution of arming teachers is problematic is because there have been various instances of violence between armed officials on campuses and students. According to an article by CNN, this presence is also likely to impact students of color at a disproportionate rate.
The presence of armed officers on campus may not always come as a relief to students due to factors that not only include their race, but also the possibility of prior trauma resulting from gun violence.
Extending this precarious responsibility to teachers could foster feelings of mistrust among students, jeopardizing relationships imperative to a student’s success if they no longer feel safe in the presence of their teacher.
Finally, it’s important to remember the logistics required to implement this concept. Each individual teacher would need to complete proper training, extensive paperwork, pay for a license, and be provided with a weapon. According to the Texas Tribune, schools have already faced numerous struggles with positioning an armed officer on each campus with regard to covering salaries, and in some cases providing equipment or vehicles.
With the reality of already underfunded public school systems, the possibility that a policy requiring teachers to be armed could actually be enforced is not likely.
While some may think that arming teachers is the only solution that could make a difference within a realistic timeline, it fails to address the root of the issue. Even if an armed teacher were successfully able to de-escalate an active threat, other students would still be put through unnecessary trauma.
Furthermore, it’s possible that multiple individuals would be harmed before anyone is notified and able to react to the threat. Therefore, this solution does nothing to combat the cause of this issue, the fact that firearms in the state of Texas are far too easily accessible.
There needs to be policy change on a large scale in order to decrease the unacceptable amount of mass shootings that have already surpassed the number of days gone by this year.
It is important to consider the role mental health plays in these events. However, if tighter restrictions actually regulated the acquisition of deadly weapons, these tragic, and completely preventable events wouldn’t occur.
It’s difficult to believe that politicians and lawmakers are invested in resolving this problem, when they only attempt to propose half-baked solutions such as arming teachers; a solution that completely sweeps this prevalent issue under the rug.
When it comes to combating challenges that are as widespread as this one, it’s imperative to remember that each individual plays a role in policy making and creating the reality they want to live in.
If there is really going to be change for the better, that minimizes the unnecessary loss and hardship that so many have already faced, it’s going to take every individual to act on the critical issue at hand.
