Should Teachers Be Allowed to Carry Firearms in Schools?

A mass high school shooting in Parkland that led to the death of many people has provoked arguments and debates concerning the issue of whether the teachers should be allowed to carry the firearms or not. Although each state has its particular laws concerning the right to carry a gun, after the tragedy on Florida the President Trump suggested to regard the problem on the federal level and proposed to arm teachers. However, it is not likely to solve the issue as unfortunately, all the people in America are under risk to be killed because of social hate, mental problems and racial issues. Some people believe that caring the guns can protect them from violence but they do not realize that a gun itself is aggression. Therefore, teachers should not carry guns as it will increase the violence levels and will also be reflected in the state finances.

1st time order 15% OFF

There are a few facts that support the idea that educators should not be allowed to carry the firearms. Firstly, it does not reduce the violence levels but rather increases the possible threat. Schools should be places of safety and protection against external aggression on the part of some people. On the on hand, some individuals argue that the permission for educators to have a gun can give the possibility to enhance protection and ability to use the weapon if needed. However, it is necessary to object that this necessity is debatable since the use of a gun can provoke even more outraged reaction of a criminal.

Furthermore, the firearm exploitation demands specific preparation and practical skills. The educator would not be able to use a gun in case of emergency without experience and psychological control of the situation. Moreover, untrained and unskilled educator with a gun can himself/herself be a serious threat for students as his/her unprofessional weapon handling can cause accidents involving innocent people. Such knowledge is possible to attain during training to use a gun but it is associated with the financial expenses.

From the mentioned above, it is clear that the permission for teachers to carry guns it rather high priced and can influence the entire financial system. If the decision to arm the educators is taken, every teacher in the US will have to be provided with ammunition, a gun and special training to learn the skills necessary to use and maintain a weapon. This can be quite expensive for the local schools in the most critical regions of the state, and overall expenditures could be huge. On the other hand, one can argue that the government should be responsible for the training and costs. In this case, the mentioned above expenses will become a part of the government budget which is closely related with the national tax system. It means that some other spheres like medicine might receive less money or citizens might have to pay additional taxes. Therefore, the decision to allow the use of guns by teachers will cost a lot of money.

Undoubtedly, it is necessary to take some measures to reduce the number of school shootings. To begin with, the federal laws concerning the firearms possession should be revised and significantly changed. The law that allows free possession and use of a gun is a way to aggression, and it leads to desire to use a weapon. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the rights of the citizens to keep and carry arms, but each state can adopt their own legislative acts to control the use of weapons. For instance, after the case in Florida, five states have adopted specific measures to reduce the amount of firearms in free use. In particular, the local governments have allowed the police to remove guns and in requested, prevent sales of weapons. In other words, they have passed “extreme risk protection orders”. Moreover, the President Trump stated that the relevant authorities would review the restriction laws to reduce the cases of gun possession among mentally ill people. Thus, obviously, the government seems to have started considering the issue seriously.

In addition to measures taken by the local and federal governments, there are some steps that can be initiated by teachers themselves. The ability to have a gun is related with the ability to kill people. In the majority of cases, the shooters are students or teenagers who are still studying. Thus, instead of carrying a gun, a teacher should be more attentive with the students and potential aggressors. In addition, a right to arms freely cannot protect children and teachers form mentally ill people as sometimes, it is hard to identify a person who has serious mental disorders. However, if an educator at school works more attentively and communicates with children, the identification of the problems can be easier from the early childhood. Furthermore, the students who have quite strange behavior and outraged attitude toward other people based on racial, gender or national aspects should be inspected and controlled with the help of educators’ and psychological assistance. The education concerning the issues of loyalty, social and national respect, gender, religious and racial equality must be regarded in schools deeper. Children should become aware of the sociological tendencies and the laws of the community as it can help to reduce aggression. Overall, the described above policy can have bigger effect than the right for educators to carry guns.

Lastly, there are some measures that can be taken within the scope of society as a whole. Every individual should be informed about the danger of arms and encouraged to refuse from the weapon. The strategy should be provided on the federal level and must be based more on psychological and social aspects. People have to be encouraged to change their attitude to weapon, and associate them with death, aggression and hate instead of protection. If entire the society transforms into the safe area, there would be no need to carry firearms for personal safety. In opposition to these ideas, Daniel Payne claims that it is necessary to allow teachers to carry guns during the lessons; otherwise, the schools will always be the places of vulnerability in the community. They will be open for new attacks as criminals will not see any possible risks there. Nevertheless, additional firearms in the educational establishments will not reduce their vulnerability but rather increase the threat to the teachers, students and society as a whole.

To sum up, educators should not be allowed to carry guns as the use of weapons is associated with aggression and additional financial expenditures for the training and ammunition. Instead of such a permission, the issue should be approached form the different side. It is better to revise the educational process taking into consideration vulnerable children since it will reduce the chances of a school shooting in the future. Moreover, one has to understand that the nature of the school shooting is rooted in the racial, gender, social hate and inequality and try to cope with them. In addition to it, the laws regulating the rights for possession of a gun are not perfect and need some changes. For example, people with different mental disorders can easily attain the weapon, and this has to be dealt with through the changes in legislation. Some states have already adopted new strategies to remove guns, reduce trade of weapons and control arms better. Thus, teachers carrying the firearms cannot protect schools from shootings better than the governmental and social changes.