Arming teachers
Arming teachers is dangerous. Research shows that the presence of a gun increases the risks posed to children. So, I have lots of questions (“Arming teachers is sad but necessary,” Feb. 11).
Who will pay for teacher training? Will “armed teachers” receive continued training? Why not just pay already trained law enforcement officers? Will the “armed teacher” be trained on dealing with implicit bias as certain students will obviously be at greater risk? Will “armed teachers” be trained to deal with hearing impaired or autistic students since they will respond differently to commands?
Where will the teacher store the gun, if at all? If an “armed teacher” is wearing the weapon during a school brawl, how will he/she prevent accidental discharges? Just last year a “gun-trained” teacher in California accidentally discharged his weapon injuring a student. And last year students in Minnesota and Michigan were able to discharge an armed officer’s weapon, while in the holster, during school hours.
Research also casts doubt on the ability of teachers to stop active shooters. A study published in Police Quarterly showed trained law enforcement officers see their ability to shoot with precision decrease by more than 20 percent when dealing with stress. I’m trying to imagine a more stressful situation than potentially shooting a student.
What will happen to the “armed teacher” when the actual police arrive as it will be impossible to tell “who is the bad guy”? Armed civilians complicate law enforcement response.
Finally, Whitley’s “positive reviews” are not actual evidence. The only evidence from “armed teacher” programs is the difficulty in training and retaining eligible people.
Arming teachers is a dangerous idea and puts children at risk.
Rebecca Newman Oviedo