Sunday, February 25, 2018

What if?

A few days ago, my friend Jim Pastori asked me a very legitimate question on facebook in light of the ongoing debate over arming educators after Stoneman Douglas"

"Just to play devil's advocate (no pun intended), if it was your kid under siege, would you want an adult (teacher, administrator etc..) with a gun to help defend them? I am not a proponent of this plan - but I try to see all sides…."

The easy cop-out: I don't have any children! (But I do have three nephews, and I have 150-175 young adults under my care daily during the school year. I'm their proxy parent when they're in my classroom.)

The easy response: Of course! Anything to save my child!

The realistic response: So this is the world in which we now live, where calling for entrusting educators with both buying and taking bullets are part of the norm. While it sounds good at face value, there are so many problems with this “solution” that it’s hard to decide where to begin.

The logic is pretty simple, according to Oregon Secretary of State Dennis Richardson: "If I had been a teacher or the principal at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and if the school district did not preclude me from having access to a firearm, either by concealed carry or locked in my desk, most of the murdered children would still be alive, and the gunman would still be dead, and not by suicide." And after Sandy Hook, Florida State Sen. Dennis Baxley said, "In our zealousness to protect people from harm we've created all these gun-free zones, and what we've inadvertently done is we've made them a target. A helpless target is exactly what a deranged person is looking for where they cannot be stopped.”

The main problem with this entire debate is that every "arm teachers so they can get the 'bad guy' before he (because it's never a 'she') can fire upon your students" looks as this as a one-size-fits-all answer. I know the plan is that teachers should only shoot the individual(s) who are trying to kill them, but it’s difficult to imagine teachers would do a better job of it than, say, professional LEOs or military. You know, individuals with thousands of hours of professional training. And even with that, there's the risk of friendly fire, casualty of war, or collateral damage. (Speaking of which, should educators prioritize sharpshooter training over lesson planning or grading assignments? There are only so many hours in the day.)

Arm the teachers, save the kids. It's a myopic, narrow-minded view that looks at a single scenario. And it makes a lot of assumptions along the way, in particular that my carrying a revolver (while on the defensive) will somehow make me capable of handling someone with a much more powerful weapon (who is on the offensive). That four armed LEOs failed to even venture into the building where students at Stoneman Douglas High School - were they strategizing? Waiting for more backup? Scare shitless? - is a huge red flag.

Regardless of whether I am armed or not, here is my "priority list" for keeping students as safe as possible in ANY situation that might involve an active shooter:

1: Ensure the doors to my classroom are locked. (Note: Mine are ALWAYS locked.)
2: Ensure shades are drawn on exterior windows.
3: Lights off.
4: Get students into one of the two storage closets in my classroom (both have art supplies and other items, but the two combined can house around 40 students).
5. Cell phones on SILENT (I mean, the ringers should be off anyway, but just to be sure).
6. Maintain silence as long as possible.

Please note that nowhere in there are the phrases "Grasp my hand around a weapon on my hip" or "Try to remember the code to my classroom gun safe" or "Abandon the class to go hunt down a shooter" or anything of the sort.

The myopic part of this discussion is that it fails to take into consideration all those other school days where there isn't an active shooter scenario, and bad things can happen with guns in a classroom environment.

First, arming a militia of teachers may only serve to give students and faculty a false sense of protection. Furthermore, it may actually be counterproductive toward instilling an atmosphere of learning, respect and safety, all of which are vital for education. I mean, on the hypothetical bright side, it may increase good behavior among students, though this good behavior would be more out of fear than respect for the rules. But rather than feeling safe and protected, the idea of armed teachers and staff has the potential to be, at the least, strongly disconcerting to the average student, and at worst downright terrifying.

There's the possibility of teachers "going postal." Don't laugh, it can happen. Or teachers who believe (justifiably or not) they are in an unsafe classroom environment.

There's the "students can overpower teachers and steal their weapons" issue.

There's the liability issues - if I (accidentally) shoot a student or two, whether during an active shooter or not, who gets sued? The school? The district? Me?

There's the the finances of this idea. I find this point particularly offensive - that having failed to adequately fund teacher salaries, pensions, and supplies the past decade-plus, suddenly our federal and state governments have an abundance of cash to create small militia in schools. Our government is telling us it can find the funds for guns, ammo, and training? And will body armor be included, or is that out-of-pocket? And if out-of-pocket, are all of these expenses deductible on my tax forms? (Hint: like everything else in government, it would become unfunded mandates, which means either higher taxes or less money for the supplies already underfunded ... or both.)

I really don't want to receive a Kevlar vest for my birthday (or ever), but given the choice, I'd take that over a gun.

According to a May 2012 poll conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for the group "Mayors Against Illegal Guns," gun-owning Americans, including National Rifle Association members, overwhelmingly support a raft of common-sense measures typically described as “gun control.” These include:

- Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees;
- Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns;
- Mandating gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen;
- Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older; and
- Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. (The NRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.)

The burden of societal ills is often placed on the shoulders of teachers today. It’s not fair, or reasonable. But we teachers have sadly become accustomed to it. We get it. We are proxy parents. In some cases, we're the parents students wish they had. And the vast majority of us do NOT believe moonlighting as soldiers or first responders solves more problems than it creates. Instead, search #armmewith to see what we really need to help all of our kids.

No comments:

Post a Comment