![]() |
Illustration by Barry Gremillion |
Columbine.
Virginia Tech. Aurora. Oak Creek. Tuscon. Mass shootings, school shootings,
domestic terrorism, and domestic violence. They float through the news cycle
daily, and I don’t pay much attention any more. Then came Newtown. At first, it
seemed like all the others: some crazy guy with a semi-automatic weapon shoots
and kills and wounds, then takes his own life. I’d heard it all before.
Until I read that it happened in an elementary
school. Until I learned that most of those killed were children under the age
of 6. I couldn’t hide from that. It has taken a few months to be able to write
about it. As expected, the shooting has ignited the debate on gun control and
safety in schools. Again.
And even now, one idea is taking root
across the country, and it makes me boil: teachers can stop school shootings if
they are allowed to carry weapons. Yes, of course, that’s the answer. Let teachers
have guns. If the teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary had been armed, they could
have stopped Adam Lanza, or at least prevented him from targeting the school in
the first place. That’s bullshit. There’s no denying the acts of heroism that occurred
at Sandy Hook that day: from the principal and the teachers who died protecting
the children, to the neighbor down the street who sheltered six students he
found sitting at the end of his driveway. But giving teachers guns to prevent
school shootings is insane.
And guess what? It’s already happened in
the Harrold Independent School District, a small community northwest of Dallas,
Texas. According to an article written by Philip Hodges (Texas School District Arms Faculty with Concealed Handguns, 12/18/2012),
Harrold has 110 students, 15 teachers, “specialized security locks, video surveillance,
and an undisclosed number of teachers carrying concealed handguns.”
Implemented in 2008, only the
superintendent and the school board know which teachers participate in the
“Guardian Plan”. The Guardians have conceal and carry permits from the state,
receive a small annual stipend, and use only frangible bullets, which crumble
into small pieces on impact with a target. According to the superintendent,
David Thweatt, “We insist upon them because we don’t want a bullet to ricochet
and hit a child.” He makes this sound
perfectly reasonable. The fact that guns might be fired in a classroom with
twenty-two children doesn’t seem to be a problem at all, as long as the bullets
don’t bounce around, which, I’m sure, isn’t something a shooter thinks about before
entering a school with his semi-automatic AR15 assault rifle.
The district couldn’t afford a security
guard, but they did provide training and handguns for the teachers. “As
educators, we don’t have to be police officers…we just have to be accurate. We
are 18 miles and 30 minutes from the nearest police station,” says Thweatt, “so
we are our first responders. If something happened, we would have to protect
our children. The police are true, everyday heroes, but often get to the scene
when it’s too late.” Parents embraced this plan in Harrold because they believe
shootings happen in places where a gunman knows there’s little resistance.
But something is missing from the
conversation here. Once a child crosses the threshold into the classroom,
there’s a relationship between teachers and students that allows learning to
happen. Teachers work to create an environment of trust and safety and respect,
a community of learners where it’s okay for everyone to make mistakes, take
risks and be curious. If teachers carry guns, the learning relationship changes.
As a kid, if I know my teacher is carrying a gun, I would work really hard not
to make him or her mad, do what I was told, and not question anything. Kids
will know who those teachers are, no matter how much adults convince themselves
they don’t. If teachers are armed, children will lose the ability to speak out.
Schools won’t be places to think or create or challenge. It won’t happen if
teachers have guns. Guns mean power.
As a teacher, especially on those long,
stressful, exhausting days with a thousand demands on my time and sanity, it
would be tempting to use the concealed gun as a disciplinary tool, maybe just a
pointed finger to where the gun rests against my ribs. Just a warning for those
children with behavior issues I don’t have the time or energy or patience to
deal with. No one wants to think a teacher might do this, and many would deny
it’s even possible. But teachers are human and carry enormous responsibilities
along with long hours and little recognition. They are overworked, and it
doesn’t matter how much training they receive in hitting a target accurately. I
worry about how effectively they can actually respond to an emergency situation
as frightening as a gunman loose in the building. A handgun issued to a teacher
is no match against the semi-automatic weapons favored mass shootings.
Yet,
five other states, along with other districts in Texas, are looking at training
and arming teachers. What are we teaching children when we barricade ourselves
inside fear?
Of course, other possible solutions like
gun control are met with lots of shouting and hysteria. We need to be armed and
ready against crazy people, because having a gun is a constitutionally
protected right. And that kind of thinking around the second amendment, says
Beverly Bandler, (The Second Amendment’s
History, 1/25/13), is why practical solutions to gun control remain
difficult. Gun lobbyists and the NRA have been very effective in promoting the
second amendment as sacred by lifting out only those parts that support its
agenda: to sell guns. To do that, the individual must have a right to buy them.
If you look at the history, as Bandler writes, the second amendment was
actually about collective rights and the establishment of a militia. But in
2008, the Supreme Court upheld the interpretation put forth by the pro-gun
folks – that the second amendment protects the individual’s right to purchase
guns.
Except that reducing gun violence doesn’t
diminish the second amendment at all. Lots of people use guns safely and
responsibly. The President’s plan to protect our children by reducing gun
violence acknowledges this and includes four reasonable steps: close background
check loopholes, ban military style assault weapons and high capacity
magazines, make schools safer by providing funding for resource officers,
counselors, and social workers, and increase access to mental health services. Let’s
put money where it might actually do some good.
When will we be able to throw away what
doesn’t work and do what’s right to protect all citizens? A gun in the hands of
the mentally ill is just too easy, and we’ve learned to cope with isolation,
poverty, fear, anger, despair, and rejection with violence. In this, there is
no sacred constitutional right.
It’s possible teachers will be expected to
put their lives on the line, and when they do, they will be applauded for their
heroism. But teachers respond in classrooms with heroic acts every single day.
They see and help children deal with the horror of domestic violence and abuse,
drugs and poverty, bullying and pregnancy, learning disabilities and mental
illness. Heroism doesn’t only show up when a shooter does.
I don’t know if there’s one best way to
protect children from shootings at school. I don’t know if the Obama
Administration’s proposals will help. But arming teachers isn’t the answer.