# data[].attributes.headline
School Marshals and Other School District Personnel Carrying Firearms | TASB

# data[].attributes.subject
School Marshals and Other School District Personnel Carrying Firearms | TASB

# data[].attributes.headline
Yes, it has come to this. It's time to arm teachers. | Washington Post

# data[].attributes.subject
Yes, it has come to this. It's time to arm teachers. | Washington Post

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A truck passes crosses placed in honor of the victims of the shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Tex. (Eric Gay/AP)

Comment Gift Article
Opinion writing is an exercise in restrained bias. But personal experience, along with observation and facts, necessarily informs a good column. Writers without some deep life experiences to guide their judgment and form insights don't usually have much to say.

Thus, my recent suggestion that willing teachers be trained and armed as a deterrence to mass murderers stems in part from a bias formed during my long-ago childhood. My father was both a lawyer and a gun collector, and he made certain through regular tutelage and practice that everyone in our household knew how to properly handle a firearm, how to shoot and, most important, how to keep the safety mechanism locked in place.

"Never point a gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot him," he often told me. "And never shoot anyone unless you intend to kill him."

Those were startling words for a girl more inclined toward Barbie dolls, palomino ponies (the plastic kind) and poodle skirts, but I studiously followed directions and learned to shoot as well as anyone in our family. Of course, my brother and I thought Pops was insane, and maybe he was. But as a child of the Great Depression and a World War II pilot, he feared that our generation would be too spoiled and soft to navigate the world he foresaw. Let's just say, his child-rearing methods - manual labor, harsh discipline and book-reading - ensured the opposite.

Follow this author Kathleen Parker's opinions

Follow

I don't subscribe to everything he said or did, of course. But I'm not inclined to hide under a desk waiting for the Soviets to launch a nuke, as schoolchildren were made to do in the '60s - or today, hoping the bullets from an AR-15 won't find my quivering hide. I'd rather take my chances defending myself - and any children in my care - than die watching my babies being mowed down by a homicidal maniac.

So, there's my bias. Now let's talk about yours.

The pros and cons of arming teachers have been bounced around since the Columbine shooting in 1999, and both resurface with each new school massacre. A Rand Corp. report in April 2020 found that as of Jan. 1, 2020, 28 states allowed schools to arm teachers or staff in at least some cases or as part of a specific program. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a law in 2019 following the Parkland slaughter that allows teachers to volunteer as "school guardians," if they meet requirements and are trained by the county sheriff. In the wake of Uvalde, where police didn't enter the school for an hour after the shooting began, Ohio has passed a similar bill.

Opponents worry that guns in schools will make children less safe and point to the possibility that law enforcement could mistake an armed teacher for the shooter. (Hint: Listen for the AR-15.) Even trained law enforcement officers miss their target roughly 70 percent of the time. In war, soldiers often die from friendly fire. How do we expect teachers to do better?

I don't know. Everything depends on smarts, strict adherence to protocols and training comparable to what security officers or police receive. I do understand the opposition's point of view, which I shared until recently. Even though there are more guns than people in this country, most urban dwellers (other than criminals) have little or no experience with guns. To them, the idea of an armed teacher is obscene. I don't disagree. It is obscene.

But when a Twitter follower wrote to me recently saying that arming teachers would be the end of civilization, I replied, "We're already there, my friend." What could be less civilized than a society that tolerates regular massacres of its citizens, especially of its children?

There comes a time when practicality trumps philosophy.

In real life, my kind and gentle husband has had to kill a couple of coyotes in our yard before they got to our pets or even, perhaps, our grandchildren. We both hated it because we love all animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats and bears. But they don't get to eat my family.

And militarized maniacs don't get to kill my children.

I'm not a teacher, but if I were, I'd want to have ready access to a gun. Some teachers, God bless them, aren't up to such a challenge and shouldn't be asked to be. Others are willing and able. In the absence of anyone else, why not allow them to defend our children?

None of these policies should be necessary, but, clearly, we're not doing enough. Until we can figure out broad, societal remedies short of cloning my father - a dicey proposition, I'll admit - I'd feel better knowing my grandchildren were in a school where someone knows how to stop a killer.
Gift this articleGift Article
Popular opinions articles

HAND CURATED

View 3 more stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Yes, it has come to this. It's time to arm teachers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Militarized psychos don't get to kill my grandchildren.

# data[].attributes.headline
Armed teachers would not make me feel safer | CNN

# data[].attributes.subject
Armed teachers would not make me feel safer | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's Note: Cameron Kasky is a former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Kasky has since organized March for Our Lives, an group advocating for gun control. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion articles on CNN.

In response to a mass school shooting, there are those who believe we need stricter gun control laws and those who believe we need increased school safety protocol.

Despite the fact that these two groups could work together in pursuit of a common cause - the safety of our children, they rarely do. And Parkland, Florida, my home and the site of one of the worst school shootings in 2018, is no exception to that rule.

That's not to say that there haven't been nonpartisan efforts, such as Stand With Parkland, an organization led by Tony Montalto, whose daughter, Gina, was killed in the February shooting. The organization aims to tackle three core issues: school safety enhancements, improved mental health care and responsible firearm ownership.

Having lived through the horrors of Parkland myself, I can attest to the importance of addressing all three of these issues. In fact, since February, I've been working and advocating in this space. Why? Because no other student should experience what my classmates and I had to ever again.

However, even with Stand With Parkland's good work, there remains a large division in the Parkland community on which issue is worth addressing - and what the root cause of school violence really is.

Almost two weeks ago, it seemed that the group advocating for increased safety protocol won one of these battles. A majority of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission recommended that part of the solution to preventing these horrible mass shootings is arming teachers. That's right, those commissioners believe that putting guns in the hands of Florida's underpaid guardians of education is the right way to handle these terrifying situations.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, a member of the Marjory Stoneman commission, even said: "In the ideal world, we shouldn't need anyone on campus with a gun, but that's not the world we live in today." He added, "One's not enough. Two's not enough. We need multiple people in order to protect the children."

To be frank, I was shocked that this idea ever became a formalized policy recommendation. As someone who has devoted the weeks and months since tragedy befell my school to gun control efforts and school safety, I can tell you that arming teachers would not make me feel any safer in a classroom setting.

For those who do not understand the true danger behind arming teachers, let me explain.

At first glance, the idea of putting firearms in the possession of our nation's teachers might seem like a good idea. If somebody comes into the building with malicious intent, the teacher can potentially swiftly end the threat.

That being said, most teachers are not trained marksmen - and that poses its own set of risks.

According to a 2008 Rand study, trained New York police officers - who, in theory, have a solid foundation in gun use - often miss their targets. In fact, they only have a hit rate of 18%. And, even in close-range shootings, they only have 37% success.

So, if we want our teachers also to be our guardians, we'll need to train them. But even with that kind of training, they may still miss their targets most of the time - just as police officers do. There's also an added risk of them missing their mark and injuring other innocent students or teachers in the process.

But let's say a teacher somehow effectively does neutralize the shooter. When the police arrive at the site of the shooting and see a teacher with a gun standing next to the dead body of what looks like a student, are the police expected simply to ask, "Hey, you're a good guy, right?" before acting?

This, of course, ignores other simpler questions. Where are the teachers storing these weapons? Is there a gun safe in every classroom? Is Mrs. Doe from our physical education class sporting a thigh holster every day?

No matter where you may fall on the school safety debate - either for stricter gun control or enhanced safety protocol - I urge you to remove the arming of teachers from your agenda. Several other tactics - such as adding bullet-proof windows, expulsion of students with clearly violent tendencies and increased mental health access on campus - can and hopefully will be implemented to protect our students from shooters wielding weapons of mass murder.

In short, there are ways we can prevent further violence in our classrooms. But by arming teachers, everyone engaged in the school safety debate loses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Armed teachers would not make me feel safer | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Editor's Note: Cameron Kasky is a former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Kasky has since organized March for Our Lives, an group advocating for gun control. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion articles on CNN.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lawmakers in these 6 states are pushing to arm teachers | NEA

# data[].attributes.subject
Lawmakers in these 6 states are pushing to arm teachers | NEA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Columbine. Newtown. Parkland. These are some of the first places that come to mind when the topic is school shootings.

But every state in the union has had at least one incident of school gun violence since 1970, according to federal data. Most have had dozens. California and Texas have suffered well over 100.

Last year stands alone as the worst on record. Ninety-four incidents of school gun violence were documented, an increase of nearly 60 percent over the previous record high in 2016.

Sadly, some state lawmakers have spent this year's legislative sessions trying to put more guns in schools. Most of their proposals involve arming teachers and other school staff (or increasing that number in states that already allow educators to carry guns).

Research indicates that arming teachers actually makes students less safe.

Putting more firearms in schools increases the possibility that a troubled student could get their hands on a gun as well as the likelihood of accidental shootings. It also takes funding and focus away from strategies proven to make schools safer, such as:

adding school counselors and school psychologists;

banning assault weapons;

and requiring universal background checks for all gun purchases.

President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos have backed the idea of arming educators. DeVos wants to use federal grant money intended for academics and enrichment to purchase firearms for teachers, even though the idea is widely rejected by educators.

A March 2018 Gallup poll found that 73 percent of U.S. teachers do NOT want to carry guns in school.

Here are the states where some lawmakers are still pushing to arm teachers:

FLORIDA

The Florida Senate passed a bill this week that would allow any teacher who undergoes training to carry firearms into the classroom.

The Florida Education Association opposes arming teachers. Instead, they advocate adding mental health staff in schools.

A group of about 150 students from the March for Our Lives movement protested the bill at the statehouse. The group was founded by students who survived the horrific 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., last February.

MISSOURI

Missouri's HB 575 includes a controversial-and frightening-amendment that legalizes concealed carry on college campuses. That means any student, staff member, or visitor with the right permit could walk around campus with a loaded gun. As written, the bill also forbids state colleges from creating their own policies to prohibit guns.

At a hearing on April 18, one person spoke in favor of the bill and 16 spoke out against it, including university students and faculty. The Missouri Education Association opposes the measure. Regardless, the House passed the bill and sent it to the Senate.

MONTANA

Earlier this month, the Montana legislature passed several bills that would result in more guns in schools. HB 567 allows any school employee to become a "school marshal," which authorizes them to carry a gun on school grounds.

Lawmakers also approved a pair of bills that remove local authority to prohibit the concealed carry of firearms in public places, including schools. Only one of those bills could be vetoed by Gov. Steve Bullock; the other, a legislative referendum, puts the item on the ballot in November 2020. The Montana Federation of Public Employees President (MFPE), which represents the state's teachers and other public employees, opposes those bills.

Related: MFPE President Eric Feaver gave passionate testimony against another measure, SB 304, which would allow legislators to carry concealed weapons in the statehouse.

NORTH CAROLINA

A pair of bills could bring disturbing changes to North Carolina schools. HB 216 would allow school staff to carry concealed handguns in schools. SB 192 adds an incentive. That measure offers a 5 percent salary increase to teachers who undergo law enforcement training so they can serve both as educators and as sworn law enforcement officers.

The North Carolina Association of Educators has been outspoken in its opposition. "We're currently ranked 50th in the country in addressing the psychological needs of our students," said NCAE President Mark Jewell. "We don't need guns. We need more nurses, more counselors, more school psychologists."

OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma allows educators to have guns in school only if they have completed armed guard or reserve peace officer training. But HB 2336, an expansion bill, would allow any school employee with a concealed carry permit to walk the halls with a loaded gun.

The Oklahoma Education Association opposes the bill. "What we need are counselors in our schools," OEA President Alicia Priest told KOCO News. "What we need is mental health access. It would save more lives to fund our schools by allowing us the funding we need to hire counselors."

TEXAS

Texas law already permits some school staff to carry guns. Now, the Texas Senate has approved a bill that would lift the requirement that school marshals keep firearms under lock and key. Another bill eliminates the cap on the number of marshals permitted on a school campus.

The Texas State Teachers Association opposes the expansion and says lawmakers should instead focus on improving school funding and mental health services.

Last May, eight Texas students and two educators were killed and 13 others were injured when a student opened fire at Santa Fe High School. It was only the second deadliest school shooting of 2018. Just three months earlier, the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School resulted in 17 deaths and 17 injuries.

What you can do:

Learn more about what works to prevent gun violence in schools. Then ask those who represent you in Congress to sign onto a resolution NOT to use federal funds to arm educators.

Connect with Everytown for Gun Safety to fight for common sense laws that save lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lawmakers in these 6 states are pushing to arm teachers | NEA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Columbine. Newtown. Parkland. These are some of the first places that come to mind when the topic is school shootings. But every state in the union has had at least one incident of school gun violence since 1970, according to federal data. Most have had dozens. California and Texas have suffered well over 100.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gun Violence - The Facts | Amnesty International

# data[].attributes.subject
Gun Violence - The Facts | Amnesty International

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Overview

Gun violence is a daily scourge that threatens our most fundamental right: the right to life. More than 600 people die every day as a result of firearms violence, which is driven in part by easy access to firearms - whether legal or illegal.

Anyone can be affected by gun violence, but it often disproportionately impacts people of colour, men and boys in deprived communities, and other marginalized groups. Domestic violence involving firearms also puts women at heightened risk of death or life-changing injuries.

Sometimes, the mere presence of firearms can make people feel threatened and fearful for their lives. They may be too afraid to attend schools or health facilities. Community-wide gun violence may prevent services from fully functioning, which can harm access to education or healthcare.

The vast majority of gun violence occurs outside of armed conflict settings. A significant proportion - in some states more than half - of firearm deaths are caused by suicide and accidents.

Our human rights are not protected if our leaders fail to tackle and end the epidemic of gun violence and gun deaths.

Previous Next

What is gun violence?

Gun violence is violence committed with firearms, such as handguns, shotguns, or semi-automatic rifles. More than 600 people are estimated to die every day from gun violence with two-thirds of gun-related deaths, including suicides, occurring in just six countries (in descending order): Brazil, the USA, Venezuela, Mexico, India and Colombia.

Up to 71% of all homicides globally involve gun violence. The majority of victims and perpetrators are young men, but women are at particular risk of violence from an intimate partner possessing a firearm. Sexual violence can also be perpetrated at gunpoint.

Firearms cause devastating injuries that leave a lasting impact on mental and physical health. Some gunshot victims need intensive, lifelong care. Others may lose their ability to work. Many have little or no access to programmes that offer adequate long-term care and rehabilitation.

How many guns are there?

More than 1 billion firearms are in circulation globally. The vast majority - 85%- are in the hand of private individuals, 13% are in military arsenals and 2% are owned by law enforcement agencies.

Gun violence committed by private individuals is typically concentrated in low-income urban neighbourhoods with high levels of crime, including drug trafficking. Many of these areas are blighted by inadequate policing or policing which does not comply with international standards on human rights and law enforcement, and a lack of access to public services.

Therefore, easy access to and proliferation of firearms, combined with socio-economic factors, can have a harmful impact on the community's full range of human rights.

Gun violence and the right to health
Gun violence can rob people of their lives, health and right to healthcare.
People living in communities plagued by firearm violence may find it difficult or even dangerous to access health care facilities. This is especially true in areas where neighbourhoods are partitioned by armed criminal gangs or subject to curfews due to insecurity.

Gun violence can also deter local authorities and NGOs from setting up community health services, and contributes to poor staff retention. Survivors of domestic violence often do not have the essential psychological support or safe accommodation they need in neighbourhoods wracked by firearm violence.

The psychological toll from rampant gun violence is often heavy, particularly for victims, their family members and those who have witnessed shootings. Survivors may be left with debilitating and life-changing injuries which require long-term medical and social care.

Gun violence and the right to education

Mass shootings and other firearm violence can disrupt children's education and make students' journeys to and from school dangerous.

Endemic gun violence damages the learning environment by disrupting school attendance and rates of retention, and makes it harder to recruit and retain teaching staff.

This can, in turn, lead to poorer outcomes for students in terms of employment and income. It can also perpetuate cycles of deprivation, crime and violence.

Gun violence exacerbates the impact of systemic discrimination.
In 2020, 60.9% of the 19,995 people killed by gun homicide in the US were African Americans, despite African Americans making up just 13% of the US population.

Black men and boys aged 15-34 are more than 10 times more likely to die from firearm homicide than white men and boys of the same age group.

Failure to address systemic discrimination; failure to keep firearms out of the hands of those most likely to misuse them; and a failure to invest in gun violence prevention programmes all contribute to this crisis.
Women facing domestic violence and children are also disproportionately affected by gun violence.
In 2020, the ratio of women in the Caribbean killed in gun violence was more than three times the global average. In the USA, guns are now the leading cause of death for children. Furthermore, between 2% and 7% of all injuries treated at US paediatric trauma centres are gun-related.

Gun Violence Figures Worldwide

How can governments stop gun violence?

Effectively implemented gun regulation and evidence-based violence prevention projects can stop the carnage.

As a first step, states should recognize firearm violence as a threat to people's human rights, in particular their rights to life, to physical integrity and security of person, and to health.

Gun regulation and gun licences

States can set up some basic systems to regulate how private individuals can own and use firearms and ammunition to prevent them from using firearms to abuse human rights.

International standards recommend prohibiting any possession of firearms without a licence; that states should register all firearms; and that unlicensed possession should be treated as a criminal offence.

A firearms licence should be subject to certain criteria. For example, the applicant should undergo a comprehensive background check to identify any risks, such as:

a criminal record - especially for violent behaviour in the home or community; history of gender-based, sexual or domestic violence;

history of problematic use of drugs/alcohol, emotional issues, mental health conditions and

any other circumstances which heighten the risks of the harm to self or others using firearms.

Gun licences should be time-limited and training on how to use the weapon should be mandatory. The number and type of weapons that an individual can possess should also be strictly limited in line with the principles of necessity and credible justification.

Some firearms and ammunition represent an unacceptable level of risk to public safety and should be banned for personal use. These should include, at a minimum, fully automatic firearms, semi-automatic assault rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and semi-automatic submachine guns.

Does gun reform work?

Yes, gun reform works. Almost all countries regulate gun acquisition, possession and use in some form. Most do this by licensing users and registering firearms.

Gun reform works in parts of the world where there are strict controls on access to firearms and well-enforced firearms regulations. This is the case for much of Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and parts of Asia. For example, in Japan, South Korea and Singapore, the rate of firearm violence is extremely low.

What does Amnesty do about gun violence?

Amnesty International is campaigning to strengthen regulations on firearm sale, transfer, use and possession. We support the creation of evidence-based violence reduction programmes in communities with persistently high levels of firearms violence.

You can stand up and remind our leaders of their obligation to keep us safe. You can play a crucial role in campaigning and protesting against gun violence and making it clear to governments that they must tackle this through strict controls on guns and effective interventions in communities suffering high levels of gun violence.
You have the power to tell governments that by using gun laws, we can all live safely and without fear - which is our right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We have the right to be safe from gun violence.

# data[].attributes.headline
From the Editorial Board: On Arming k-12 Teachers

# data[].attributes.subject
From the Editorial Board: On Arming k-12 Teachers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
gunfire on school grounds. Of these incidents, 573 occurred on the grounds of a preschool, elementary, middle, or high school, resulting in 188 deaths and 392 people wounded. Nearly half (at least 46 percent) of the victims in these incidents were students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We can't let risky ideas, like allowing guns in schools and arming teachers, to dominate the debate. We need meaningful strategies to keep schools safe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Only two weeks after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where 17 students and educators were murdered, Florida lawmakers rejected a ban on assault rifles and decided instead to heed President Trump's call to put even more weapons in our schools. A bill is moving through the state legislature that would train teachers to carry guns. It allocates $67 million to create so-called "school marshalls," staff trained to carry a concealed weapon on school grounds.

The bill would put 10 armed educators in every school, roughly 37,000 statewide.

For the students, educators, and parents still reeling from the massacre in Parkland (just the latest in a rash of school shootings that has spread across the U.S.), the notion that combating gun violence in schools requires even more guns being brought into schools is both ludicrous and dangerous.

Alexis Underwood, president of the Association of Bay County Educators and a retired Marine, calls arming teachers "a horrible idea."

"One of the things that my drill instructor told me is that even individuals in the military, in a moment of crisis, when the gun fires for real, are going to forget what they've been taught to do and they're going to run or they're going to make stupid mistakes," Underwood told a local Florida TV station last week. The priority, Underwood added, should be funding highly trained school resource officers.

Most law enforcement experts agree that school staff should not carry guns because they lack the tactical knowledge of handling weapons that trained law enforcement personnel receive on a regular basis. Even if the funding for the weapons and training were to be available after massive cuts to education budgets, educators carrying concealed weapons pose too high a risk to school safety.

"You don't want to have a gun that's available to a student or another worker who may have mental health issues," Maureen S. Rush, vice president for public safety and superintendent of the Police Department at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times.

Parents and educators overwhelmingly reject the idea of arming teachers and other school staff, said NEA President Lily Eskelsen García. "Bringing more guns into our schools does nothing to protect our students and educators from gun violence. Our students need more books, art and music programs, nurses and school counselors; they do not need more guns in their classrooms," she said.

More Accidents, More Fatalities, More Fear

NEA Vice-President Becky Pringle shudders at the thought of how a school's learning environment would be transformed by the presence of educators walking around carrying concealed weapons.

"I taught eighth grade science for over 30 years," she said. "I can't imagine being in an environment where guns are all around me. What's being described by the president and others sounds more like a prison to me, with the teachers as armed guards and students as prisoners."

With that many weapons in a school, Pringle says, there will be more accidents, more fatalities, and more fear.

More importantly, educators themselves do not want to be armed in their classrooms. Over the past couple of weeks, teachers and education support professionals have taken to social media in droves to send a message to the Trump administration and pro-gun advocates that arming educators is an unacceptable response.

Melissa Falkowski, who survived the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, says the logistics of arming teachers makes no sense. A shooting like the one in Parkland, Florida, happens in less than three minutes, she says, and "having a gun that would have to be secured and locked somewhere in a closet and then having to go for that gun and then having to use that against a shooter, it makes no logical sense."

Arming teachers is an idea that comes from people outside of the classroom, she says, and urges lawmakers to listen to what educators are saying.

"If you have never worked in a school or qualified with a firearm please stop advocating that teachers should be armed," Dan Staples, a mathematics teacher who served in the U.S. Marine Corps posted on Facebook. "First, most of my colleagues have zero interest in carrying. Second, there is a much greater chance of having a negligent discharge or a misplaced weapon or a bad guy getting hold of that weapon than there is of that teacher using it to neutralize a threat."

"I'm a teacher and a gun owner with a concealed and carry permit, and I'd never want to bring a gun to my classroom," tweeted Benjamin Gorman, a high school English teacher. "My kids need to feel safe, and I should be thinking about content and not worrying about someone grabbing my pistol. Arming teachers is a gun manufacturer's solution."

High school French teacher Margaret Kieler tweeted, "My job is to connect with kids and teach them a language. No shooting required."

Students, who have become leaders in the new push for common sense gun laws, are also outraged.

"I don't know if Donald Trump has ever been to a public high school but, as far as I'm aware, teachers are meant to be educators," Parkland student Alfonso Calderon told CNN. They are meant to teach young minds how to work in the world. They are not meant to know how to carry AR-15s; they are not meant to know how to put on Kevlar vests for the other students or for themselves."

Keep the Focus Where it Belongs

Armed educators are already roaming the hallways in schools in nine states, most notably in Texas. In addition to the bill being debated in Florida, lawmakers in other states are gearing up to introduce similar legislation. While educators should be mobilizing against these proposals, Eskeslen García urges lawmakers to refocus their efforts on common sense measures "that will really save lives."

Public support for these types of solutions has surged to its highest level in 25 years, according to a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll. Overwhelming majorities back measures such as banning assault weapons and instituting background checks on all gun sales. And the sight of Parkland students leading massive protests has reenergized the movement to change gun laws.

As Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson wrote on Feb. 26, the gun lobby is spooked and would be more than happy to keep the public debate on guns focused squarely on arming educators.

"The deliberately outrageous idea of arming classroom teachers is nothing more than a distraction," Robinson said. "A ploy by the gun lobby to buy time for passions to cool. Don't get sidetracked."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Only two weeks after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where 17 students and educators were murdered, Florida lawmakers rejected a ban on assault rifles and decided instead to heed President Trump's call to put even more weapons in our schools.

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas teachers union survey finds that school employees don't want to be armed | TX Tribune

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas teachers union survey finds that school employees don't want to be armed | TX Tribune

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
A survey of nearly 4,000 K-12 teachers in Texas found that most do not want to be armed while in class or be expected to intercept a gunman at school, according to the state's teachers union, which released its survey results Wednesday.

The Texas American Federation of Teachers sent an online questionnaire to its 65,000 members, which include public school teachers, support personnel and higher education employees, a week after an 18-year-old gunman killed 21 people - including 19 children - at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde. Soon after the shooting, Texas Republicans said the solution could be arming teachers.

A total of 5,100 members responded to the union's survey, including 3,673 secondary school teachers. Of those K-12 teachers, 76% of them answered "no" when asked, "Do you want to be armed?" About 90% of all school employees who responded said they are worried about a shooting happening at their school.

Texas AFT's membership includes public school teachers and employees, as well as those who work at colleges and universities.

Zeph Capo, president of the Texas AFT, said at a press conference Wednesday that the Texas Legislature has made it easier for people to buy guns instead of focusing on protecting the lives of children.

"We're depending on the United States Congress to take action because what the Texas Legislature has shown us is rather than doing things to fix it, they want to put Band-Aids on it," he said.

Capo called on Texans to vote in November for people who will bring real change to gun policy and protect Texan students and teachers.

Nearly a decade ago, Texas lawmakers created the school marshal program, a way for educators to carry weapons inside schools. But since then, only 84 school districts have opted to have such a program. In those districts, only 361 people have become licensed school marshals across a state that has 9,000 campuses and more than 369,000 public school teachers.

The survey of Texas school employees found that there is an overwhelming support for stricter enforcement of guns.

Of all those who answered the survey, 98% support red flag laws, which would allow local officials to take someone's guns away if a judge declares them to be a danger; 96% want the minimum age for legal gun purchases raised from 18 to 21; and 83% support a ban on assault weapons.

Texas Democrats have already called for a special legislative session to pass sweeping gun reform.

The Uvalde shooting may also have ramifications to Texas' already struggling teacher workforce. Slightly less than half of those surveyed said the shooting may affect their decision to leave teaching.

Over the last two years, the pandemic and attacks on teachers have exacerbated the state's teacher shortage. It has become such a major issue for school districts that Gov. Greg Abbott created a task force to come up with ways to solve it.

Across the state, teachers in Texas are finishing out one of the toughest years they have ever seen. Since the pandemic hit two years ago, teachers have had to navigate a series of disruptions caused by the coronavirus - first the closure of schools and the switch to online education, then a return to classrooms last fall that was marred twice by major outbreaks. At the same time, they have had to face parents angry about mask mandates and learn to tailor history lessons about racism to keep students from feeling "uncomfortable," per a state law passed last year.

Katrina Rasmussen, a Dallas high school teacher and union member who attended AFT's news conference, said schools are supposed to be one of the safest places for communities, yet the only answer she hears is more guns.

"I've seen student and teacher deaths mounting, and yet all I hear from policymakers is empty rhetoric," she said. "I asked my legislators, 'Is turning my learning community into a militarized zone really the best you can come up with?'"
Disclosure: Texas AFT Join us Sept. 22-24 in person in downtown Austin for The Texas Tribune Festival and experience 100+ conversation events featuring big names you know and others you should from the worlds of politics, public policy, the media and tech - all curated by The Texas Tribune's award-winning journalists. Buy tickets. has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas teachers union survey finds that school employees don't want to be armed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. A survey of nearly 4,000 K-12 teachers in Texas found that most do not want to be armed while in class or be expected to intercept a gunman at school, according to the state's teachers union, which released its survey results Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.headline
Racial Sentiment and Public Support for Arming Teachers

# data[].attributes.subject
Racial Sentiment and Public Support for Arming Teachers

# data[].attributes.headline
Race Differences in Youths’ Attitudes Toward Arming Teachers: Investigating the Role of Procedural Justice

# data[].attributes.subject
Race Differences in Youths’ Attitudes Toward Arming Teachers: Investigating the Role of Procedural Justice

# data[].attributes.headline
Arming Teachers Introduces New Risks Into Schools | Everytown

# data[].attributes.subject
Arming Teachers Introduces New Risks Into Schools | Everytown

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association are the nation's two largest teachers' organizations representing millions of educators and staff. They oppose arming teachers.

The National Association of School Resource Officers strongly opposes proposals to arm teachers due to the risk it would pose to law enforcement, students and the school community, as well as the risks to the armed teachers themselves.

The President and Executive Director of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represents 75 police forces from large cities in the USA and Canada, both agree that arming teachers is "not a good idea."

"The more guns that are coming into the equation, the more volatility and the more risk there is of somebody getting hurt."
J. Thomas Manger, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association

The notion of a highly trained teacher armed with a gun is a myth.

Law enforcement officers receive an average of 840 hours of basic training including 168 hours of training on weapons, self-defense, and the use of force. In states that have laws aimed at arming school personnel, school staff receive significantly less training. In some of these states there is no minimum training required at all.

Even some of the most highly trained law enforcement officers in the country, those of the New York City Police Department, see their ability to shoot accurately decrease significantly when engaged in gunfights with perpetrators.

1. Students will access teachers' guns.

Research strongly supports the idea that children will access guns when guns are present.

One study showed that the majority of children are aware of where their parents store their guns. In fact, more than one third of those children reported handling their parents' guns, many doing so without the knowledge of their parents. Nearly a quarter of parents did not know that their children had handled the gun in their house.

There have been numerous incidents where guns carried into schools were misplaced - guns left in bathrooms, locker rooms, sporting events, even an incident where a gun fell out while a teacher did a backflip.

There are also multiple incidents where guns were stolen from teachers by students, or cases where guns were misplaced and later found in the hands of students.

There have been numerous incidents where guns carried into schools were misplaced-guns left in bathrooms, locker rooms, sporting events, even an incident where a gun fell out while a teacher did a backflip.

2. The risk of shootings increases.

Access to a firearm, irrespective of age, triples the risk of death by suicide and doubles the risk of death by homicide.

There have been several incidents of guns intentionally or unintentionally discharged on school grounds by school staff. This includes both intentional and unintentional shootings such as:

3. Arming teachers introduces new liability risks.

When several districts in Kansas sought to arm teachers, the insurance companies informed them that they would not insure such a dangerous practice.

School policies may expose teachers to criminal liability in the event policies are not consistent with state law. It is also unlikely that insurance companies would indemnify schools from monetary claims in these cases.

State immunity laws cannot exempt schools from all legal liability, particularly federal civil rights liability.
The best way to protect American schools from mass shootings and gun violence is to adopt an evidence-based intervention plan like the one proposed by Everytown, The American Federation of Teachers, and The National Education Association.
Using what we know about school gun violence, our organizations have put together a plan that focuses on intervening before violence occurs.

1. Enact Sensible Gun Laws

The first part of this plan focuses on preventing shooters from getting their hands on guns by enacting sensible laws including:

Extreme Risk laws

Laws that empower family and law enforcement to petition a judge to temporarily prevent a person from having access to guns when they pose a serious risk to themselves or others. These laws empower family members and law enforcement to act on warning signs of violence, which most active shooters exhibit before shootings at school.

Responsible firearm storage laws

Laws that require that people store firearms responsibly when they are not in their possession in order to prevent unauthorized access. These laws, along with building public awareness of responsible storage, can address the most common source of guns used in school gun violence.

Raising the age to purchase semiautomatic firearms to 21

These laws raise the age to purchase all semiautomatic firearms to 21, to match the age to purchase a handgun from a licensed gun dealer. Most active shooters at schools are school-aged. These laws can prevent minors from easily obtaining guns.

Requiring background checks on all gun sales

Under current federal law, background checks are only required for sales from licensed gun dealers, but not for sales between unlicensed individuals. This gap enables people exhibiting warning signs, minors, and people with dangerous histories to evade gun laws and get their hands on guns at gun shows or from strangers they meet online. Requiring a background check on all gun sales is the foundation of any comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy.

2. Protect Schools with Evidence-Based Actions

The second part of the plan focuses on evidence-based and expert-endorsed actions that schools can take to intervene and address warning signs of violence and to keep shooters out of schools. Schools can do this by:

Establishing threat assessment programs

Threat assessment programs are school programs to identify and manage potential threats of violence. These programs allow schools to understand and intervene when a student is a risk to themselves or others.

Implementing basic security upgrades

Basic security measures that prevent unauthorized access to school buildings, grounds, and classrooms, including access control measures and interior door locks, can intervene to prevent access to a school and give law enforcement time to respond.

Planning in advance for emergencies

Effective emergency planning, which facilitates communication, can empower staff to immediately lock out schools and allow law enforcement to respond quickly.

Establishing safe and equitable schools

Schools should review school discipline practices, establish community schools, ensure threat assessment programs are not having a disproportionate impact on communities of color, and promote effective partnerships between students and adults in order to keep schools safe.

Everytown Research & Policy is a program of Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, an independent, non-partisan organization dedicated to understanding and reducing gun violence. Everytown Research & Policy works to do so by conducting methodologically rigorous research, supporting evidence-based policies, and communicating this knowledge to the American public.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arming Teachers Introduces New Risks Into Schools | Everytown Research & Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association are the nation's two largest teachers' organizations representing millions of educators and staff. They oppose arming teachers. The National Association of School Resource Officers strongly opposes proposals to arm teachers due to the risk it would pose to law enforcement, students and the school community, as well as the risks to the armed teachers themselves.

# data[].attributes.headline
Advocates say arming Texas school employees won't cost that much. But many districts don't want to do it. | TX Tribune

# data[].attributes.subject
Advocates say arming Texas school employees won't cost that much. But many districts don't want to do it. | TX Tribune

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Flanked by several Dallas-area lawmakers on May 30, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott laid out a 40-page school safety plan in response to a southeast Texas school shooting that left 10 people dead.

At the heart of his proposal: "hardening" Texas schools, in part by providing money to districts that join existing state programs for arming school staff. The idea received immediate pushback from many educators, who don't like the idea of guns in schools and worry that programs that arm teachers would be too expensive in a state that's already struggling to fund education.

But those who support the idea say armed staff can help stop a dangerous gunman. And, they say, the school marshal plan that Abbott is touting wouldn't actually cost that much.

"The latest that I heard is that the training for each marshal is about $500," said state Rep. Jason Villalba , the Dallas Republican who authored the bill Texas school marshal program Abbott wants to expand. that created the

Under the program, schools can designate one employee for every 400 students a marshal. And, Villalba noted, nearly 80 percent of Texas' school districts have fewer than 3,000 students . That means most Texas districts, in theory, could have seven or eight marshals at most.

Aside from training, Villalba said, the only other costs associated with the program are the costs of buying the guns, ammunition and a lock box (which is currently required for marshals who directly interact with students ). Villaba's measure doesn't require schools that utilize the marshal program to get liability insurance, but districts may choose to do so, he said.

It's also possible the cost to train school marshals could decrease. In outlining his proposal, Abbott advocated for streamlining the training course - currently a "burdensome" 80 hours.

Jerry Patterson, Texas' former land commissioner who helped get the state's concealed handgun law passed in 1995 when he was a state senator , said the other costs to schools would be minimal.

"You can buy a pretty decent semi-automatic 9mm for concealed carry for $500 or less," Patterson said, adding that a lock box costs $100 to $150. "I don't think expense is all that significant. The firearm and the ammo is so cheap it should not be a factor. It costs nothing."

Some smaller districts disagree . The state initially had a grant program in place to help districts cover training costs associated with the marshal program, but the money ran out and funding has not been reauthorized. Craig Bessent, assistant superintendent of Wylie ISD and one of the first school marshals in Texas, pointed to a lack of funding to implement the program at a Senate Select Committee on Violence in Schools & School Security on Wednesday.

But one of the biggest worries for some school officials has nothing to do with cost. It's a safety concern.

"I'm not an armed guard, did not sign up to be one, and have no intention of becoming one," Tricia Cave, a high school teacher in Pasadena, wrote in The Texas Tribune's Facebook group, This is Your Texas. "Teachers are not police officers."

The idea of arming Texas school personnel is not new. It first emerged after a shooting in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, which left 28 dead - including 20 children and the shooter. Villalba authored the bill Texas' school marshal program shortly thereafter. that created

Abbott's plan doesn't mandate arming teachers. Rather, it would provide funds to schools that utilize Texas' school marshal program - one of two programs that arm teachers in more than 200 of Texas' 1,000-plus school districts .

A majority of Texans say they support arming teachers. According to a recent Quinnipiac poll conducted in the days immediately following the Santa Fe shooting, 54 percent of Texas parents who have children in public schools support arming teachers and other school officials.

But several school districts say they're still hesitant to participate in such programs.

"To expect an elementary teacher or high school teacher to be able to jump into action with limited training is hard for me to believe," said Eanes ISD Superintendent Tom Leonard. "The risk with that many guns in the school makes it seem like there will be more harm than good. "

Several Texas teacher associations are also discouraging schools from arming their employees. The price to implement the program may be low, they say, but the real cost comes from the potential harm that may come to teachers and their students.

"While the teacher is wasting time and endangering his or her life trying to find their gun, they should be locking the doors, putting a desk or something against the door and comforting his or her students," said Clay Robison, a spokesman for the Texas State Teachers Association.
Note: This story was inspired by a discussion on education policy happening now in our Facebook group, This is Your Texas. Sign up here to join the conversation. Disclosure: The Texas State Teachers Association has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Advocates say arming Texas school employees won't cost that much. But many districts don't want to do it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Flanked by several Dallas-area lawmakers on May 30, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott laid out a 40-page school safety plan in response to a southeast Texas school shooting that left 10 people dead. At the heart of his proposal: "hardening" Texas schools, in part by providing money to districts that join existing state programs for arming school staff.

# data[].attributes.headline
John Lott: Armed teachers can save student lives - Don't leave children defenseless against school shooters | Fox News

# data[].attributes.subject
John Lott: Armed teachers can save student lives - Don't leave children defenseless against school shooters | Fox News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
John Lott: Armed teachers can save student lives – Don’t leave children defenseless against school shooters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When teachers are allowed to carry guns in schools they make them safer and protect students.

# data[].attributes.headline
This Texas school began arming teachers with guns in 2007. More than 170 other districts have followed | TX Tribune

# data[].attributes.subject
This Texas school began arming teachers with guns in 2007. More than 170 other districts have followed | TX Tribune

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HARROLD - All of Harrold Independent School District is packed into a two-story red brick building that sits off U.S. Highway 287, nestled among windmills, a water tower and farmland.

The district serves kids from a 200-square-mile area in Wilbarger County near the Texas-Oklahoma border. Everyone knows everyone in this rural district with 24 employees and 115 students, about 100 of whom commute from other towns.

It takes the county sheriff's department about 15 minutes to respond to the average emergency call. So to close that gap, Superintendent David Thweatt created a plan in 2007 to arm certain staff members, including teachers and administrators.

"We take care of ourselves," Thweatt said. "I don't want to be anybody's victim."

Harrold ISD was the first of more than 170 Texas school districts - mostly in rural or isolated areas - to arm educators and other employees to prevent a possible tragedy. So far, Thweatt said, the armed employees in his district haven't had to pull their guns.

But since the Feb. 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in which 17 people died, districts with such a policy have come under national scrutiny as more politicians have pushed for arming teachers or other school personnel.

Critics argue that allowing guns in schools makes students and staff less safe and adds another burden on schools. But proponents say it helps districts more quickly respond to active shooter situations, and the chosen employees often have to pass psychological or shooting tests.

"People always picture the absentminded woman who couldn't find her gradebook," Thweatt said. "They picture the worst candidate for this. And not everybody in our system is a candidate for this."

"We take care of ourselves."

Texas schools have two options if they want to arm staff members: The Guardian Plan allows local school boards to determine training standards and authorize specific employees to carry on campus at all times. The school marshal program also allows local boards to authorize employees, but they must be specially trained and licensed by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, which oversees the program. Under the marshal program, they can't carry firearms around students.

Both programs require anonymity - only select officials can know who is armed in a school district - and both allow districts to offer armed employees a monetary stipend.

About 10 years ago, following the 2006 Pennsylvania Amish schoolhouse shooting that left five dead and the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting that left more than 30 dead, Thweatt created the Guardian Plan, fearing a similar incident could happen in Harrold.

Thweatt wrote the policy, got school board members' approval and had a team of attorneys look over the proposal to ensure it didn't violate state or federal law. After Harrold ISD began arming employees, Thweatt shared what they had done with the Texas Association of School Boards, which compiles school district policies, and the idea began to spread.

Harrold ISD employees chosen to carry at school go through at least 15 hours of training that includesvideos of hostage scenarios and shooting drills.

Thweatt said he uses his own judgment to determine whether an employee is a good candidate for such a potentially deadly responsibility.

"There's no one on the Guardian team that I haven't worked closely with for at least three or four years," he said.

The Guardian Plan began receiving more attention from other school districts after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, which left 28 dead - including 20 children and the shooter.

Texas Association of School Boards spokesperson Barbara Williams said at least 172 Texas districts have adopted the Guardian Plan. Because no state agency has responsibility for the plan, local school boards set training standards and decide who is approved to carry concealed handguns on school property.

At Fayetteville ISD, which adopted the plan in February, and Keene ISD, which adopted it in 2016, superintendents Jeff Harvey and Ricky Stephens said every armed employee in their districts has to take a mandatory psychological test administered by an outside party.

While Fayetteville ISD doesn't require a specific amount of firearms training, Harvey said most staff members do around 20 hours per year - which can include going to a shooting range. Keene ISD goes a step further, Stephens said, requiring 80 hours of initial training and 40 hours annually after that.

After the Sandy Hook shooting - and amid mounting criticism that the Guardian Plan didn't require police-style training - the Legislature passed the Protection of Texas Children Act in 2013.

The bill, authored by state Rep. Jason Villalba, R-Dallas, created the school marshal program - which President Donald Trump praised during a meeting of governors at the White House after the Parkland shooting.

"It's understandable that parents would be nervous about having guns on campus," Villalba told The Dallas Morning News in February. "That's why we created this to be tailored and narrow - so that the educators will also be highly trained peace officers. And so far, the response has been favorable."

Districts with school marshals are regulated by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, which develops the 80-hour police-style training employees take every two years. The training includes a mental health evaluation and firearms proficiency requirements.

Schools can designate one marshal for every 400 students or one per building. Unlike guardians, marshals aren't allowed to carry guns around students and have to keep them in a lockbox.

Although the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement would not release the number of districts with marshals, saying it's confidential information, Villalba told Politico in February that he believes it is greater than 20 but fewer than 50. One of these districts is Wylie ISD, located in Taylor County.

Craig Bessent, the district's assistant superintendent of school operations, said he prefers the marshal program because it's stricter than "just somebody carrying a gun."

"There's been renewed discussion since Florida. People want to know, 'Are my kids going to be protected?'" he said. "We just try to do the best we can, and I'm just sorry we live in these times."

To arm or not to arm?

Although experts said there has been increased interest among Texas school districts in arming educators since the Parkland shooting, that hasn't translated into a spike in districts actually adopting one of the programs.

And some still doubt their effectiveness.

"We're adamantly opposed to arming teachers. That's not what they're meant to do," said Clay Robison, spokesperson for the Texas State Teachers Association. "You don't address gun violence in the schools by putting more guns in schools. You sell more guns that way."

Robison pointed to other safety options districts can use, such as hiring school resource officers - government-employed peace officers placed at schools - or creating their own police departments. According to the Texas Association of School Boards, about 150 districts have their own police departments and more than 250 districts use school resource officers instead. Still, Robison said, those options can be too expensive for smaller districts.

Dallas ISD Police Chief Craig Miller, who spent 30 years in the city's police department before joining the district in 2011, told The Dallas Morning News in February that it's difficult for even veteran officers to react perfectly during a shooting - and to recover psychologically after firing at someone.

Miller said he saw the benefit of school marshals in rural communities, but he's also reluctant to encourage more educators to carry guns into schools.

"One thing that people lose sight of in these shootings is that it takes place in the blink of your eye," Miller told the newspaper. "Even with a school administrator down another hall armed, they may not be able to get there in time to do something."

That debate doesn't seem to be giving people second thoughts in Harrold ISD, where many community members are privately licensed to carry and hunting is popular.

"We think about it, we try and guess who's armed, but I think everyone is pretty indifferent about this," said high school senior Cheyenne Thomas. "We feel safe."

Parent Grace White, who graduated from Harrold ISD in 1994, lives 20 minutes away in Vernon and has two teenagers in the district. She said she doesn't remember any backlash when the district's policy was first initiated because people trusted Thweatt's decision.

And with every school shooting since 2007, including the one in Parkland, White said support for arming their educators has only grown.

"It has given me peace of mind," she said as she watched her 16-year-old son and his peers return from physical education class from her seat high in the wooden bleachers of the school's modest gymnasium. "We all wonder, why aren't bigger schools taking that policy and action yet? I don't understand because it's only getting worse."
Disclosure: The Texas Association of School Boards and the Texas State Teachers Association have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Read related Tribune coverage

Quality journalism doesn't come free

Perhaps it goes without saying - but producing quality journalism isn't cheap. At a time when newsroom resources and revenue across the country are declining, The Texas Tribune remains committed to sustaining our mission: creating a more engaged and informed Texas with every story we cover, every event we convene and every newsletter we send. As a nonprofit newsroom, we rely on members to help keep our stories free and our events open to the public. Do you value our journalism? Show us with your support.

Yes, I'll donate today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
texas association of school boards (tasb)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Texas school began arming teachers with guns in 2007. More than 170 other districts have followed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Harrold Independent School District was the first of many Texas districts - mostly in rural or isolated areas - to arm educators and other employees to prevent a potential school shooting. "I don't want to be anybody's victim," the school's superintendent says.

# data[].attributes.headline
ABC's and AR-15's: Arming Arkansas's Teachers

# data[].attributes.subject
ABC's and AR-15's: Arming Arkansas's Teachers

# data[].attributes.headline
Harrold ISD talks Guardian Policy following Uvalde shooting | News Channel 6

# data[].attributes.subject
Harrold ISD talks Guardian Policy following Uvalde shooting | News Channel 6

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HARROLD, Texas (KAUZ) - The tragedy at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde has reignited conversations on whether or not to arm teachers. One Texas school district says its decision to allow educators to carry handguns is essential to protecting its students.

Harrold ISD has armed its teachers under what’s called the Guardian Policy since 2007. Teachers and staff are trained to carry and use handguns in the event of an emergency, provided they have a concealed handgun license and have undergone extra training. Teachers said they believe they are prepared to act if necessary, and that the policy would help them protect their students.

“The tragedy at Uvalde, it is so sad. That you know evil happens, no matter what laws you pass, evil will always happen.”

A large part of why the district implemented the policy lies in the fact that Harrold is in a rural area and doesn’t have a police station. The closest law enforcement is 30 minutes away. If a shooter came to the school, how long would it take for help to arrive?

“If someone chose to, they could probably do a lot of damage in that length of time. With the people that we have here that the protection of the kids is our number one priority,” bus driver Jason Browning said. “I protect them from the time they get on my bus until the time they get off my bus.”

While arming teachers can be a controversial topic, Superintendent Cody Patton believes this policy gives them an advantage in the event of the unthinkable.

“If a situation was to occur or something, instead of just having to not be in control of the situation, we’ve taken steps to give us a little more control and put us at a level where we can protect our kids,” he said.

“We’ve had parents transfer their kids out here because of this policy,” agriculture teacher Russ Remsey said. “There’s been several, I can’t name how many, but there’s been several that just because of this policy, they’ve wanted that peace of mind knowing that there’s somebody there to help their kids in case something like this were to happen.”

While Harrold ISD mourns for the Uvalde community, they remain prepared and trained to act if necessary. In the words of band teacher Jesse Lotspeich: “Being a guardian school, if somebody did come in, I know that help would get there fast. I know that for a fact and we practiced that.”

Lea el artículo en espanól aquí.

Copyright 2022 KAUZ. All rights reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Harrold ISD talks Guardian Policy following Uvalde shooting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Harrold ISD’s teachers have carried handguns since 2007.

# data[].attributes.headline
Arming Teachers for School Safety: Providing Clarity for State Policies

# data[].attributes.subject
Arming Teachers for School Safety: Providing Clarity for State Policies

# data[].attributes.headline
Armed and Dangerous - Teachers? A Policy Response to Security in Our Public Schools

# data[].attributes.subject
Armed and Dangerous - Teachers? A Policy Response to Security in Our Public Schools

# data[].attributes.headline
Teachers' unions push back on gun debate | Union Matters

# data[].attributes.subject
Teachers' unions push back on gun debate | Union Matters

# data[].attributes.headline
Firearms on School District Property | TASB

# data[].attributes.subject
Firearms on School District Property | TASB

# data[].attributes.headline
School Safety and Security Committees | TASB

# data[].attributes.subject
School Safety and Security Committees | TASB

# data[].attributes.headline
Operationalizing School Behavior Threat Assessment FAQs | TASB

# data[].attributes.subject
Operationalizing School Behavior Threat Assessment FAQs | TASB

# data[].attributes.headline
Arming Teachers Will Not Lead to Safer Schools | Bloomberg

# data[].attributes.subject
Arming Teachers Will Not Lead to Safer Schools | Bloomberg

# data[].attributes.headline
Rather Than Arming Teachers with Guns, Let's Arm Them With the Supports They Need | The 74

# data[].attributes.subject
Rather Than Arming Teachers with Guns, Let's Arm Them With the Supports They Need | The 74

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I never thought I would have to write this sentence: Asking our educators to carry guns in the classroom is a senseless idea.

Teachers are supposed to play a critical role in shaping the development of our nation's children and teens. Though undervalued, they always have been tasked with creating supportive learning environments that enable their students to thrive.

Yet how are they supposed to do this when teaching is now ranked as one of the most stressful occupations in the United States? Educators are left to address escalating job demands with little autonomy, working long hours to grade assignments and plan lessons, struggling to achieve unrealistic accountability measures, and on top of all this, figuring out how to pay for their classroom supplies. This stress is affecting educators' mental and physical health, leading to burnout, poor performance, and escalating turnover.

And as we grapple with yet another school shooting, our educators are also left to navigate an uncertain environment, where tragedy can strike at any moment.

Now, consider the undue stress that some of our educators would face if they were asked to take on double duty as law enforcement officers, as proposed by President Trump and embraced by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and the National Rifle Association after the February 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

The negative implications of this are endless.

There are the questions of logistics: Where will the teacher keep the gun - on a holster under the arm? Will it be loaded at all times? There are the questions of training: How often will the teacher need to train in order to have the skill to take down an active shooter toting an automatic rifle? Who will be liable when we see the training is insufficient and the educator makes a mistake?

And how are children going to feel in a class where their teacher might be wearing a gun? Students are already struggling to feel safe at school. Research shows that children in high-stress environments are more likely to drop out of school, experience behavioral problems, and demonstrate aggressive responses than those who learn in a safe, nurturing environment.

Finally, what is the price associated with bringing this training to even 10 percent of our teachers - up to 1.4 million educators across the country? This would come at the expense of the already limited professional development they receive, programs that are threatened further by a proposed federal budget that completely eliminates Title II professional development funds. Along with paying for pencils, paper, and books, would our teachers have to buy guns, too?

Our educators' role in our society is to teach, not to be armed. They should not need to be on constant alert for an active shooter with an AR-15, or always wonder if they have the training to respond effectively in this worst-case, incredibly stressful, scenario.

They should be able to focus on equipping our students with the academic, social-emotional, and career skills they need to succeed in our society - and providing them with that supportive, caring environment.

The evidence shows that hardening our schools is not the answer. We need to enable our educators, and individuals throughout the school building, to identify the warning signs that troubled students may demonstrate and provide them with the supports they need.

Rather than arm our teachers and anticipate the worst, let's heed the call on social media from educators across the country and arm them with the resources to be more mindful, compassionate, and responsive in the classroom, and embrace the role they have always played in our society: creating a learning environment where all our children and teens can feel engaged and cared for, and thrive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: Rather Than Arming Teachers With Guns, Let's Arm Them With the Supports They Need

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I never thought I would have to write this sentence: Asking our educators to carry guns in the classroom is a senseless idea. Teachers are supposed to play a critical role in shaping the development of our nation's children and teens. Though undervalued, they always have been tasked with creating supportive learning environments that enable [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
Should teachers be armed? Yes: Staff can keep students safe | Sand Diego Union Tribune

# data[].attributes.subject
Should teachers be armed? Yes: Staff can keep students safe | Sand Diego Union Tribune

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
School shootings are the result of multiple issues within our society that are complex in nature and cannot be solved with one solution. Unfortunately, school shootings are likely to continue until society decides to address the root causes, including troubled kids who fall between the cracks of society, a mental health system that needs modernizing and the breakdown of family structure.

Over the last 100 years in California, there have been approximately 22 events that fit what most people would define as a school shooting. Of the 22 shootings, 17 were between 1990 and 2018. Even one school shooting is unacceptable, but these events are rare, and most schools will never experience a shooting incident.

While even one school shooting is unacceptable, the reality is that in a free and open society of 320 million people, these incidents are impossible to accurately predict or prevent. Metal detectors and controlling all entry points onto the campus are options, but as we saw in the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, being physically secure did little to impede the attacker. If we can't prevent them, the question becomes how do we minimize the loss of life by stopping the attacker quickly.

Related: Should teachers be armed? No: Guns don't belong on school campuses

Related: Schools should propose arming teachers, staff

Related: Why Trump plan to arm teachers fails to make the grade

Related: A San Diego student's view on arming teachers

One way is to end the practice of gun-free school zones and allow staff to protect themselves and students, or to hire armed security or law enforcement. Only armed defenders can stop armed attackers and there is more than one option.

First, at a premium cost, schools can hire armed private security or contract with local law enforcement. Some school districts currently contract with local law enforcement agencies to provide a school resource officer (SRO). The SRO provides armed security for the school at an annual cost of between $100,000 and $250,000. This is an effective solution but an expensive one that could be difficult to afford.

Many school districts in California are struggling financially. Funding armed security that will likely never have to stop a violent crime is a major expense for educating students and serving the community. If a district chooses armed security as the best approach, each district would have to decide if it provides security to all schools or some, what is the legal liability if only some schools are protected, and what the training standards should be.

Second, for less cost, but more organizational work, schools can use trained, armed volunteers drawing from retired law enforcement, veterans and qualified parents. This option has not been fully implemented in enough places to have a true track record. It requires a lot of infrastructure to organize people, schedules and training.

Third, the most cost-effective and easy option to manage is to allow school staff to volunteer to be trained to carry concealed firearms while working. To be clear, no one is talking about forcing teachers to be armed. What is being suggested is to allow faculty who are already-proficient gun owners to carry a concealed firearm after they undergo specialized training. These individuals are not intended to replace law enforcement, but to provide protection while waiting for law enforcement to arrive.

Training for teachers is inexpensive and, in some cases, granted free from many local and national organizations. School districts working with the community and local law enforcement are no longer allowed to determine how best to protect their students due to Assembly Bill 424, which passed the Legislature and was signed into law last year by Gov. Jerry Brown. Prior to passage of the legislation, school district superintendents had the authority to provide written permission for a person to possess a firearm within a school zone. AB 424 takes choice away from school districts to allow school staff to defend the lives of their students so implementation of this plan would require action by Sacramento.

Aaron Feis at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School lost his life attempting to shield students from the shooter. It's likely loss of life could have been reduced had he been armed.

Preventing trained teachers from being able to defend their lives and their students has proven to be a bad idea. We don't prevent executives, lawyers, politicians, doctors, business owners or stockbrokers from defending their lives. A child's life is just as important. Allowing trained staff to be armed and carry concealed weapons on campus is the best short-term solution.
Drammissi, the parent of two grown children who attended San Diego schools, is a board member with the San Diego County Gun Owners, a political action committee promoting Second Amendment rights. ALSO Poll: Do you support arming teachers?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Commentary: Should teachers be armed? Yes: Staff can keep students safe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
School shootings are the result of multiple issues within our society that are complex in nature and cannot be solved with one solution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Arming Schoolteachers: What Do We Know? Where Do We Go From Here?

# data[].attributes.subject
Arming Schoolteachers: What Do We Know? Where Do We Go From Here?

# data[].attributes.headline
Is Arming Teachers Our Nation's Best Response to Gun Violence? The Perspective of Public Health Students

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Arming Teachers Our Nation's Best Response to Gun Violence? The Perspective of Public Health Students

# data[].attributes.headline
Arming teachers - an effective security measure or a false sense of security? | The Conversation

# data[].attributes.subject
Arming teachers - an effective security measure or a false sense of security? | The Conversation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Even trained police officers often miss their target during gunfights. RichLegg / Getty Images

In the wake of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, some elected officials are making calls anew forteachers to be armed and trained to use firearms to protect the nation's schools. To shine light on the matter, The Conversation reached out to Aimee Huff and Michelle Barnhart, two Oregon State University scholars who have studied the ins and outs of putting guns in the hands of the nation's teachers as a way to protect students.
1. What does the public think about arming teachers?

According to a 2021 poll, 43% of Americans supported policies that allow school personnel to carry guns in schools.

But if you take a closer look, you see that most of that support comes from Republicans and gun-owners. For instance, 66% of Republican respondents expressed support for such policies, versus just 24% of Democratic respondents. And 63% of gun owners supported allowing school personnel to carry guns, versus just 33% of non-gun owners.

The majority of teachers, parents and students oppose allowing teachers to carry guns.

The largest teachers unions, including the National Education Association, also oppose arming teachers, arguing that bringing more guns into schools " makes schools more dangerous and does nothing to shield our students and educators from gun violence."

These teachers unions advocate a preventive approach that includes more gun regulations.

While the public is justifiably concerned with eliminating school shootings, there is disagreement over the policies and actions that would be most effective. A 2021 study found that 70% of Americans supported the idea of armed school resource officers and law enforcement in schools, but only 41% supported the idea of training teachers to carry guns in schools.

In our research on how Americans think about the rights and responsibilities related to armed self-defense, we even find disagreement among conservative gun owners over how to best protect schoolchildren. Some advocate arming teachers, while other gun owners believe guns in schools ultimately make children less safe. These conservative opponents of arming teachers instead support fortifying the building's design and features.

After the massacre in Uvalde, we are seeing renewed calls from politicians to arm teachers and provide them with specialized training.

However, amid conflicting reports about whether police officers engaged the Robb Elementary School shooter, there are renewed questions about whether armed teachers would make a difference. Police have acknowledged they didn't enter the school even as kids frantically dialed 911.

Given that there were also armed officers present at the Columbine and Parkland school massacres in 1999 and 2018, respectively, the public is understandably right to wonder whether armed teachers can effectively neutralize a shooter. Amid reports that trained and experienced police officers may have been unable or unwilling to intervene against the Uvalde shooter, it's not clear whether teachers would be, either.

2. What are the potential drawbacks of arming teachers?

Arming teachers introduces risks to students and staff, as well as school districts themselves. These include the risk of teachers accidentally shooting themselves or students and fellow staff. There are also moral and legal risks associated with improper or inaccurate defensive use of a firearm - even for teachers who have undertaken specialized firearms training.

One study found that highly trained police in gunfights hit their target only 18% of the time. Even if teachers, who would likely have less training, achieve the same accuracy, four or five of every six bullets fired by a teacher would hit something or someone other than the shooter. Further, a teacher responding with force to a shooter may be mistaken for the perpetrator by law enforcement or by armed colleagues.

Introducing guns to the school environment also poses everyday risks. Armed teachers may unintentionally discharge their firearm. For instance, an armed police officer accidentally discharged his weapon in his office at a school in Alexandria, Virginia in 2018. Guns can also fall into the wrong hands. Research on shootings that took place in hospital emergency rooms found that in 23% of the cases, the weapon used was a gun the perpetrator took from a hospital security guard.

Students could also access firearms that are improperly stored or mishandled. Improper storage is a common problem among American gun owners. In a school setting, this has resulted in students finding a teacher's misplaced firearm, sometimes taking it or reporting it to another school official. News reports show that guns carried into schools have fallen out of teachers' clothing, and have been left in bathrooms and locker rooms. There have also been reports of students stealing guns from teachers.

Insurance companies also see concealed guns on school grounds as creating a heightened liability risk.

Other drawbacks to arming teachers involve the learning environment. In particular, owing to structural racism and discriminatory school security policies, Black high school students are less supportive than white students of arming teachers - 16% versus 26% - and report feeling less safe if teachers are carrying firearms.

3. What are the arguments for arming teachers?

Proponents emphasize that teachers, as Americans, have a right to use firearms to defend themselves against violent crime, including a school shooter. Our research shows that some people interpret their right to armed self-defense as a moral obligation, and argue that teachers have both a right and a responsibility to use firearms to protect themselves and their students.

Parents who regularly carry handguns to protect themselves and their children may take comfort knowing that their child's teacher could perform the role of protector at school.

In a school shooting, where lives can be saved or ended in a matter of seconds, some people may feel more secure believing a shooter would immediately meet armed resistance from a teacher without needing to wait for an armed school officer to respond.

4. Have any school districts allowed teachers to arm themselves?

Yes. Teachers may carry guns at school in districts in at least 19 states. The idea surfaced as a viable policy after the 1999 Columbine shooting, and gained momentum after the 2018 Parkland shooting.

The number of school districts that permit teachers to be armed is difficult to ascertain. Policies vary across states. New York bars school districts from allowing teachers to carry guns, while Missouri and Montana authorize teachers to carry firearms.

5. What were the results?

There are documented incidents of school staff using their firearm to neutralize a shooter. However, researchers have not found evidence that arming teachers increases school safety. Rather, arming teachers may contribute to a false sense of security for teachers, students and the community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arming teachers - an effective security measure or a false sense of security?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the wake of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, some elected officials are making calls anew forteachers to be armed and trained to use firearms to protect the nation's schools.

# data[].attributes.headline
Get the Facts | NRA Institute of Legislative Action

# data[].attributes.subject
Get the Facts | NRA Institute of Legislative Action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find the answer to many of your FAQs here including information on Universal Background Checks, "Assault Weapons", and conceal carry.

# data[].attributes.headline
"Gun Violence" Search of Pew Research Center

# data[].attributes.subject
"Gun Violence" Search of Pew Research Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Short Read | May 20, 2022

Short Read | Sep 13, 2021

Short Read | May 12, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions.

# data[].attributes.headline
"School Shooting" Search of Pew Research Center

# data[].attributes.subject
"School Shooting" Search of Pew Research Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Short Read | Apr 18, 2018

Short Read | Dec 13, 2018

Short Read | Mar 16, 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions.

# data[].attributes.body
You and your partner will work together to construct your argument based on the graphic organizer provided in LitD (p. 106). Your argument must entail the following:

Claim

Evidence (Aim for 2-3 sources)

Warrant

Qualification (Optional)

Counterclaim

Additionally, you must identify whether your argument is of: reasoning, source-based, or applying rules (p. 93).

# data[].attributes.body
While listening to your classmates, begin thinking of possible rebuttals. You may construct your rebuttal informally, but you must still provide evidence, and a warrant if possible. You and your partner must respond to at least ONE other pair's argument.

# data[].attributes.body
We should arm teachers

# data[].attributes.body
"Allowing school employees to carry concealed guns also makes the job of the police much safer. Concealed carry means that killers won't know who is armed. Even if they take an officer by surprise, they must worry that they are revealing their position to someone else who can stop them." - Fox News

"Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a law in 2019 following the Parkland slaughter that allows teachers to volunteer as “school guardians," if they meet requirements and are trained by the county sheriff In the wake of Uvalde, where police didn’t enter the school for an hour after the shooting began, Ohio has passed a similar bill" - Washington Post

# data[].attributes.body
Washington Post: Author is more opinionated in their statements but give evidence for both a pro and con perspective, but identifies that until we can find a remedy that fits many perspectives that, again opinionated, many feel that having a line of defense between the shooter who could kill that child and the child themselves is the best option and the author states as we have seen with Uvalde, reaction times are not always the best and this lead to more tragedies happening. The author also makes a point that the teachers where the bills are passed that they are properly trained by a county sheriff and that there should be this training in place so teachers can be better prepared on how to handle situations with school shooters.

# data[].attributes.body
Also from Washington Post: Great source for both pro and con, but to add to the con side, the author describes how even professional law enforcement officers miss their target a lot so they point out how could we expect teachers to do better? The author also states that the police could possibly mistake the teacher for an armed shooter and this could lead to the teacher possibly being shot.

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers should not be armed in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers should not be armed in schools

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers should not be armed in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
we should arm teachers

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers don't want to be armed in schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Only two weeks after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where 17 students and educators were murdered, Florida lawmakers rejected a ban on assault rifles and decided instead to heed President Trump's call to put even more weapons in our schools. A bill is moving through the state legislature that would train teachers to carry guns. It allocates $67 million to create so-called "school marshalls," staff trained to carry a concealed weapon on school grounds.

The bill would put 10 armed educators in every school, roughly 37,000 statewide.

For the students, educators, and parents still reeling from the massacre in Parkland (just the latest in a rash of school shootings that has spread across the U.S.), the notion that combating gun violence in schools requires even more guns being brought into schools is both ludicrous and dangerous.

Alexis Underwood, president of the Association of Bay County Educators and a retired Marine, calls arming teachers "a horrible idea."

"One of the things that my drill instructor told me is that even individuals in the military, in a moment of crisis, when the gun fires for real, are going to forget what they've been taught to do and they're going to run or they're going to make stupid mistakes," Underwood told a local Florida TV station last week. The priority, Underwood added, should be funding highly trained school resource officers.

Most law enforcement experts agree that school staff should not carry guns because they lack the tactical knowledge of handling weapons that trained law enforcement personnel receive on a regular basis. Even if the funding for the weapons and training were to be available after massive cuts to education budgets, educators carrying concealed weapons pose too high a risk to school safety.

"You don't want to have a gun that's available to a student or another worker who may have mental health issues," Maureen S. Rush, vice president for public safety and superintendent of the Police Department at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times.

Parents and educators overwhelmingly reject the idea of arming teachers and other school staff, said NEA President Lily Eskelsen García. "Bringing more guns into our schools does nothing to protect our students and educators from gun violence. Our students need more books, art and music programs, nurses and school counselors; they do not need more guns in their classrooms," she said.

More Accidents, More Fatalities, More Fear

NEA Vice-President Becky Pringle shudders at the thought of how a school's learning environment would be transformed by the presence of educators walking around carrying concealed weapons.

"I taught eighth grade science for over 30 years," she said. "I can't imagine being in an environment where guns are all around me. What's being described by the president and others sounds more like a prison to me, with the teachers as armed guards and students as prisoners."

With that many weapons in a school, Pringle says, there will be more accidents, more fatalities, and more fear.

More importantly, educators themselves do not want to be armed in their classrooms. Over the past couple of weeks, teachers and education support professionals have taken to social media in droves to send a message to the Trump administration and pro-gun advocates that arming educators is an unacceptable response.

Melissa Falkowski, who survived the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, says the logistics of arming teachers makes no sense. A shooting like the one in Parkland, Florida, happens in less than three minutes, she says, and "having a gun that would have to be secured and locked somewhere in a closet and then having to go for that gun and then having to use that against a shooter, it makes no logical sense."

Arming teachers is an idea that comes from people outside of the classroom, she says, and urges lawmakers to listen to what educators are saying.

"If you have never worked in a school or qualified with a firearm please stop advocating that teachers should be armed," Dan Staples, a mathematics teacher who served in the U.S. Marine Corps posted on Facebook. "First, most of my colleagues have zero interest in carrying. Second, there is a much greater chance of having a negligent discharge or a misplaced weapon or a bad guy getting hold of that weapon than there is of that teacher using it to neutralize a threat."

"I'm a teacher and a gun owner with a concealed and carry permit, and I'd never want to bring a gun to my classroom," tweeted Benjamin Gorman, a high school English teacher. "My kids need to feel safe, and I should be thinking about content and not worrying about someone grabbing my pistol. Arming teachers is a gun manufacturer's solution."

High school French teacher Margaret Kieler tweeted, "My job is to connect with kids and teach them a language. No shooting required."

Students, who have become leaders in the new push for common sense gun laws, are also outraged.

"I don't know if Donald Trump has ever been to a public high school but, as far as I'm aware, teachers are meant to be educators," Parkland student Alfonso Calderon told CNN. They are meant to teach young minds how to work in the world. They are not meant to know how to carry AR-15s; they are not meant to know how to put on Kevlar vests for the other students or for themselves."

Keep the Focus Where it Belongs

Armed educators are already roaming the hallways in schools in nine states, most notably in Texas. In addition to the bill being debated in Florida, lawmakers in other states are gearing up to introduce similar legislation. While educators should be mobilizing against these proposals, Eskeslen García urges lawmakers to refocus their efforts on common sense measures "that will really save lives."

Public support for these types of solutions has surged to its highest level in 25 years, according to a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll. Overwhelming majorities back measures such as banning assault weapons and instituting background checks on all gun sales. And the sight of Parkland students leading massive protests has reenergized the movement to change gun laws.

As Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson wrote on Feb. 26, the gun lobby is spooked and would be more than happy to keep the public debate on guns focused squarely on arming educators.

"The deliberately outrageous idea of arming classroom teachers is nothing more than a distraction," Robinson said. "A ploy by the gun lobby to buy time for passions to cool. Don't get sidetracked."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Only two weeks after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where 17 students and educators were murdered, Florida lawmakers rejected a ban on assault rifles and decided instead to heed President Trump's call to put even more weapons in our schools.

# data[].attributes.body
"According to a 2008 Rand study, trained New York police officers – who, in theory, have a solid foundation in gun use – often miss their targets. In fact, they only have a hit rate of 18%. And, even in close-range shootings, they only have 37% success.

So, if we want our teachers also to be our guardians, we’ll need to train them. But even with that kind of training, they may still miss their targets most of the time – just as police officers do. There’s also an added risk of them missing their mark and injuring other innocent students or teachers in the process."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/26/opinions/parkland-arming-teachers-wont-improve-safety-kasky/index.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's Note: Cameron Kasky is a former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Kasky has since organized March for Our Lives, an group advocating for gun control. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion articles on CNN.

In response to a mass school shooting, there are those who believe we need stricter gun control laws and those who believe we need increased school safety protocol.

Despite the fact that these two groups could work together in pursuit of a common cause - the safety of our children, they rarely do. And Parkland, Florida, my home and the site of one of the worst school shootings in 2018, is no exception to that rule.

That's not to say that there haven't been nonpartisan efforts, such as Stand With Parkland, an organization led by Tony Montalto, whose daughter, Gina, was killed in the February shooting. The organization aims to tackle three core issues: school safety enhancements, improved mental health care and responsible firearm ownership.

Having lived through the horrors of Parkland myself, I can attest to the importance of addressing all three of these issues. In fact, since February, I've been working and advocating in this space. Why? Because no other student should experience what my classmates and I had to ever again.

However, even with Stand With Parkland's good work, there remains a large division in the Parkland community on which issue is worth addressing - and what the root cause of school violence really is.

Almost two weeks ago, it seemed that the group advocating for increased safety protocol won one of these battles. A majority of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission recommended that part of the solution to preventing these horrible mass shootings is arming teachers. That's right, those commissioners believe that putting guns in the hands of Florida's underpaid guardians of education is the right way to handle these terrifying situations.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, a member of the Marjory Stoneman commission, even said: "In the ideal world, we shouldn't need anyone on campus with a gun, but that's not the world we live in today." He added, "One's not enough. Two's not enough. We need multiple people in order to protect the children."

To be frank, I was shocked that this idea ever became a formalized policy recommendation. As someone who has devoted the weeks and months since tragedy befell my school to gun control efforts and school safety, I can tell you that arming teachers would not make me feel any safer in a classroom setting.

For those who do not understand the true danger behind arming teachers, let me explain.

At first glance, the idea of putting firearms in the possession of our nation's teachers might seem like a good idea. If somebody comes into the building with malicious intent, the teacher can potentially swiftly end the threat.

That being said, most teachers are not trained marksmen - and that poses its own set of risks.

According to a 2008 Rand study, trained New York police officers - who, in theory, have a solid foundation in gun use - often miss their targets. In fact, they only have a hit rate of 18%. And, even in close-range shootings, they only have 37% success.

So, if we want our teachers also to be our guardians, we'll need to train them. But even with that kind of training, they may still miss their targets most of the time - just as police officers do. There's also an added risk of them missing their mark and injuring other innocent students or teachers in the process.

But let's say a teacher somehow effectively does neutralize the shooter. When the police arrive at the site of the shooting and see a teacher with a gun standing next to the dead body of what looks like a student, are the police expected simply to ask, "Hey, you're a good guy, right?" before acting?

This, of course, ignores other simpler questions. Where are the teachers storing these weapons? Is there a gun safe in every classroom? Is Mrs. Doe from our physical education class sporting a thigh holster every day?

No matter where you may fall on the school safety debate - either for stricter gun control or enhanced safety protocol - I urge you to remove the arming of teachers from your agenda. Several other tactics - such as adding bullet-proof windows, expulsion of students with clearly violent tendencies and increased mental health access on campus - can and hopefully will be implemented to protect our students from shooters wielding weapons of mass murder.

In short, there are ways we can prevent further violence in our classrooms. But by arming teachers, everyone engaged in the school safety debate loses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Armed teachers would not make me feel safer | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Editor's Note: Cameron Kasky is a former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Kasky has since organized March for Our Lives, an group advocating for gun control. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion articles on CNN.

# data[].attributes.body
"Law enforcement officers receive an average of 840 hours of basic training including 168 hours of training on weapons, self-defense, and the use of force. In states that have laws aimed at arming school personnel, school staff receive significantly less training. In some of these states there is no minimum training required at all.

Even some of the most highly trained law enforcement officers in the country, those of the New York City Police Department, see their ability to shoot accurately decrease significantly when engaged in gunfights with perpetrators"

https://everytownresearch.org/report/arming-teachers-introduces-new-risks-into-schools/?_gl=1*7bknj0*_ga*mjawotazntkyni4xnju2njmwmzi3*_ga_lt0fwv3ek3*mty1njyzmdmyny4xljeumty1njyzmtqwnc4w

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association are the nation's two largest teachers' organizations representing millions of educators and staff. They oppose arming teachers.

The National Association of School Resource Officers strongly opposes proposals to arm teachers due to the risk it would pose to law enforcement, students and the school community, as well as the risks to the armed teachers themselves.

The President and Executive Director of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represents 75 police forces from large cities in the USA and Canada, both agree that arming teachers is "not a good idea."

"The more guns that are coming into the equation, the more volatility and the more risk there is of somebody getting hurt."
J. Thomas Manger, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association

The notion of a highly trained teacher armed with a gun is a myth.

Law enforcement officers receive an average of 840 hours of basic training including 168 hours of training on weapons, self-defense, and the use of force. In states that have laws aimed at arming school personnel, school staff receive significantly less training. In some of these states there is no minimum training required at all.

Even some of the most highly trained law enforcement officers in the country, those of the New York City Police Department, see their ability to shoot accurately decrease significantly when engaged in gunfights with perpetrators.

1. Students will access teachers' guns.

Research strongly supports the idea that children will access guns when guns are present.

One study showed that the majority of children are aware of where their parents store their guns. In fact, more than one third of those children reported handling their parents' guns, many doing so without the knowledge of their parents. Nearly a quarter of parents did not know that their children had handled the gun in their house.

There have been numerous incidents where guns carried into schools were misplaced - guns left in bathrooms, locker rooms, sporting events, even an incident where a gun fell out while a teacher did a backflip.

There are also multiple incidents where guns were stolen from teachers by students, or cases where guns were misplaced and later found in the hands of students.

There have been numerous incidents where guns carried into schools were misplaced-guns left in bathrooms, locker rooms, sporting events, even an incident where a gun fell out while a teacher did a backflip.

2. The risk of shootings increases.

Access to a firearm, irrespective of age, triples the risk of death by suicide and doubles the risk of death by homicide.

There have been several incidents of guns intentionally or unintentionally discharged on school grounds by school staff. This includes both intentional and unintentional shootings such as:

3. Arming teachers introduces new liability risks.

When several districts in Kansas sought to arm teachers, the insurance companies informed them that they would not insure such a dangerous practice.

School policies may expose teachers to criminal liability in the event policies are not consistent with state law. It is also unlikely that insurance companies would indemnify schools from monetary claims in these cases.

State immunity laws cannot exempt schools from all legal liability, particularly federal civil rights liability.
The best way to protect American schools from mass shootings and gun violence is to adopt an evidence-based intervention plan like the one proposed by Everytown, The American Federation of Teachers, and The National Education Association.
Using what we know about school gun violence, our organizations have put together a plan that focuses on intervening before violence occurs.

1. Enact Sensible Gun Laws

The first part of this plan focuses on preventing shooters from getting their hands on guns by enacting sensible laws including:

Extreme Risk laws

Laws that empower family and law enforcement to petition a judge to temporarily prevent a person from having access to guns when they pose a serious risk to themselves or others. These laws empower family members and law enforcement to act on warning signs of violence, which most active shooters exhibit before shootings at school.

Responsible firearm storage laws

Laws that require that people store firearms responsibly when they are not in their possession in order to prevent unauthorized access. These laws, along with building public awareness of responsible storage, can address the most common source of guns used in school gun violence.

Raising the age to purchase semiautomatic firearms to 21

These laws raise the age to purchase all semiautomatic firearms to 21, to match the age to purchase a handgun from a licensed gun dealer. Most active shooters at schools are school-aged. These laws can prevent minors from easily obtaining guns.

Requiring background checks on all gun sales

Under current federal law, background checks are only required for sales from licensed gun dealers, but not for sales between unlicensed individuals. This gap enables people exhibiting warning signs, minors, and people with dangerous histories to evade gun laws and get their hands on guns at gun shows or from strangers they meet online. Requiring a background check on all gun sales is the foundation of any comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy.

2. Protect Schools with Evidence-Based Actions

The second part of the plan focuses on evidence-based and expert-endorsed actions that schools can take to intervene and address warning signs of violence and to keep shooters out of schools. Schools can do this by:

Establishing threat assessment programs

Threat assessment programs are school programs to identify and manage potential threats of violence. These programs allow schools to understand and intervene when a student is a risk to themselves or others.

Implementing basic security upgrades

Basic security measures that prevent unauthorized access to school buildings, grounds, and classrooms, including access control measures and interior door locks, can intervene to prevent access to a school and give law enforcement time to respond.

Planning in advance for emergencies

Effective emergency planning, which facilitates communication, can empower staff to immediately lock out schools and allow law enforcement to respond quickly.

Establishing safe and equitable schools

Schools should review school discipline practices, establish community schools, ensure threat assessment programs are not having a disproportionate impact on communities of color, and promote effective partnerships between students and adults in order to keep schools safe.

Everytown Research & Policy is a program of Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, an independent, non-partisan organization dedicated to understanding and reducing gun violence. Everytown Research & Policy works to do so by conducting methodologically rigorous research, supporting evidence-based policies, and communicating this knowledge to the American public.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arming Teachers Introduces New Risks Into Schools | Everytown Research & Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association are the nation's two largest teachers' organizations representing millions of educators and staff. They oppose arming teachers. The National Association of School Resource Officers strongly opposes proposals to arm teachers due to the risk it would pose to law enforcement, students and the school community, as well as the risks to the armed teachers themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
If police officers have a low accuracy rate when shooting a target and they are trained, by default teachers who receive the same training would have a similar accuracy rate. Thus limiting their ability to effectively stop an intruder with a gun.

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers should not be armed in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Society cannot demand courageous self-sacrifice; we can only ask for it. Most of us know we ourselves would be too frightened to face an armed gunman in a direct confrontation, and we accordingly choose to seek work that doesn't put us in such positions-or shouldn't. But perhaps even some of those who do volunteer for danger now lack the fortitude, the relevant virtues of courage, honor, and selflessness, to take up the task.

On Tuesday, the Texas Department of PublicSafety announced that Pete Arredondo, the chief of the Uvalde school district's police, had ceased cooperating with the agency's investigation into Arredondo and his officers' response to last week's mass murder at Robb Elementary School. Though DPS officials didn't venture a guess as to why Arredondo had withdrawn his cooperation, the performance of the Uvalde police at the shooting-a portrait of which has emerged in grim detail after grim detail over the past several days-certainly supplies enough suggestion of lethal negligence and catastrophic failure to encourage the employ of a good lawyer.
Elizabeth Bruenig: 78 minutes
Another man might own up to what he had done directly, but that same man likely wouldn't have done what Arredondo evidently did in the first place-namely, barely anything at all. Unlike other school shootings, the urgent mystery at the heart of the Robb Elementary School slaughter is as much about the behavior of law enforcement as the behavior of the killer. Per the latest reports, though two senior police officers entered the school only two minutes after the killer and exchanged fire with him through a locked classroom door, Arredondo ordered his men to stand back for more than an hour, while children were dead and dying.

Though DPS and the Department of Justice have yet to release any findings from their investigations into the police response at Uvalde, we can rule out one explanation for so much incomprehensible delay: It wasn't that they couldn't breach the door. Police beat down locked doors regularly. It rather seems that Arredondo believed that all the children within the shooter's reach were already dead-they weren't; Arredondo had no reason to presume such, and possibly reasons to believe otherwise-and therefore that the most important thing was to wait for a Border Patrol team with better protective equipment to breach the door.

Yesterday, The New York Times reported that after a 10-year-old student called 911 and told the operator one of her teachers lay dying in the classroom, a group of law-enforcement officers in the corridor finally decided to act, ignoring an explicit order not to breach. Once they had chosen, after precious time had passed, to act, they simply entered the classroom and killed the shooter. No law-enforcement officers were killed, although one was grazed by a bullet fragment.

If the police had just broken down the door early on, they may have found the odds of a veritable throng of adult men against a teenage boy fairly favorable. Other men caught in the sights of school shooters have done as much. Liviu Librescu, a 78-year-old engineering professor at Virginia Tech, barricaded his classroom door with his body and directed his students to escape through windows during the 2007 rampage there. He eventually died of his injuries after the gunman gained entry. Riley Howell, a student, gave his life at 21 as he tackled a shooter firing into a crowded classroom at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte in 2019, taking bullets to the head and torso as he slammed his body into the shooter's, ending the killing. That same year, Kendrick Castillo, an 18-year-old student at STEM School Highlands Ranch, in Colorado, lunged at a shooter who opened fire on his literature class, allowing a group of other students to disarm the killer. Castillo, too, died for his bravery. There are so many others.

On occasion, and typically in contexts having more to do with what is done but ought not to be than what isn't done but should be, we consider the malignant variant of male character called toxic masculinity.More familiar instances of toxic masculinity concern the wanton infliction of violence, especially the sexual kind, especially upon women and girls. In his threats of rape and domestic battery, the Uvalde killer himself exhibited this strain: emasculated, resentful, explosively violent but mainly toward women and children, for he was afraid of adult men.
Graeme Wood: Where were the police?
Yet on the other side of the wall was, it seems, another sort of toxic masculinity-a platoon of armed and trained men who had evidently come to rely so heavily on guns and armor in lieu of courage and strength that they found themselves bereft of the latter when outdone in the former. Instead they were beset by cowardice, evidently as convinced as the shooter was that the gun really does make the man, and that outgunned is thus as good as outmanned.

In its own imagination, Texas is the land of men who would never admit defeat at all, much less surrender instantly with decent odds and innocent lives at stake: Surely its police ought to feel the highest and noblest sort of calling to valor, the type of vocation that surpasses profession and speaks to a person's mission in life. Or perhaps those things, too, all the militarism and bravado, the heady authority and free respect, the unearned certainty in one's own capacities provoked by so manyPunisher bumper stickers and decals, had the same corrupting effect as the guns and body armor. Eventually, one either develops their own virtues or finds they've developed vices instead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
employ of a good lawyer.elizabeth bruenig

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
familiar instances of toxic masculinity concern

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Society cannot demand courageous self-sacrifice; we can only ask for it. Most of us know we ourselves would be too frightened to face an armed gunman in a direct confrontation, and we accordingly choose to seek work that doesn't put us in such positions-or shouldn't.

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers should be given the freedom to choose, under the assumption that there would be proper instruction, and certification, teachers can arm themselves for the safety of their classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/stephen-gutowski/us-1-far-gun-ownership-only-28th-gun-murder-rate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of the most obnoxious liberal talking points on guns involves the idea that guns, in and of themselves, cause gun violence. Apparently, as this argument goes, guns or "gun culture" cause law-abiding citizens to transform into murderous nuts. In other words, more guns must mean more gun violence.

The argument was famously made by sports writer Jason Whitlock and forwarded by Bob Costas on Sunday Night Football after a player reportedly murdered his girlfriend and killed himself. According to Costas and Whitlock, guns "exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it." In other words, guns make us violent.

Obviously, this argument is as flawed as saying that refrigerators exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate our eating, and bait us into embracing gluttony rather than avoiding it. However, it's also an argument that doesn't remotely match up with what the numbers tell us. In fact, the numbers tell quite a different story.

According to the latest Small Arms Survey conducted by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, the U.S. tops the world in civilian gun ownership. We have 89 guns for ever 100 residents. That's well above Yemen's second place rate of 55 guns per 100 and nearly twice the rate of Switzerland which comes in third at 46 guns per 100 residents.

To put it bluntly, we have a lot of guns.

If Whitlock, Costas, and their allies are correct, that must mean that our gun murder rate is by far the highest in the world, right? We must be first in gun murders.

But, according to information provided by the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime and compiled by the Guardian, the answer is an emphatic "No."

The U.S. is not the world leader in the homicide-by-firearm rate. It does not even crack the top 25 in that category.

Instead, the U.S. has the 28 th highest homicide by firearm rate of the countries in the report.

This phenomenon isn't uniquely American, either. Switzerland, which ranks third in civilian gun ownership rate at 46 guns per 100 residents, has only the 46 th highest homicide rate. Finland, which has the fourth most civilian owned guns at 45 guns per 100 residents, is 63 rd on the list.

So, despite the blustering of Bob Costas and the like, guns do not appear to turn ordinary people into monsters. More guns do not, in fact, mean more gun violence. Guns can be, and commonly are, used in a responsible manor by people all over the world and, especially, here in the United States.
See more "Right Views, Right Now."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. #1 By Far In Gun Ownership - But, Only 28th In Gun Murder Rate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the most obnoxious liberal talking points on guns involves the idea that guns, in and of themselves, cause gun violence. Apparently, as this argument goes, guns or "gun culture" cause law-abiding citizens to transform into murderous nuts. In other words, more guns must mean more gun violence.

# data[].attributes.body
https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
UPDATED on July 6th, 2019: Original title: "More misleading information from Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety on guns: 'Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings,' Showing how mass public shootings keep occurring in gun-free zones" Originally posted on September 9, 2014.

While the first part of the discussion here goes through each mass public shooting from 2009 to 2014 discussed in the Bloomberg report. At the end of the post, we have a response to Everytown's response to our post.

We have since updated our information up through May 30, 2018.

An Excel spreadsheet that lists all the mass public shootings from 1998 through April 30, 2018 is available here: Case by case discussion of which cases have been in gun-free zones. UPDATED: Broader and updated information on these shootings from 1998 to June 2019 is available here.

The report by Bill Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott on gun-free zones that covers earlier years from 1977 to 1999 is available here (the raw data used in this study is available in a STATA file, though the sums by state and year are available here). We used the cases identified by the New York Times that are discussed in Lott and Landes for years prior to 1977 (series is discussed here, though the web version doesn't have the chart that lists out each case). A case by case discussion on the New York Times cases can be found at the bottom of this page.

Definition of mass public shooting.

We used the traditional FBI definition of mass public shootings in all our posts on this (e.g., here, here, and here). There are several parts to this definition.

1. The official FBI definition of public shootings (both mass public shootings and active public shootings) excludes "shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence" or that occurred in the commission of another crime such as robbery. The reason for this is pretty obvious: the causes and solutions for gang shootings over drug turf are dramatically different than the types of mass public shootings that we see at schools and malls where the point of the attack is to kill as many people as possible.

2. The FBI also includes only shootings in "public places" such as: commercial areas (malls, stores, and other businesses); schools and colleges; open spaces; government properties (including military bases and civilian offices); houses of worship; and healthcare facilities. The reason for this is clear: for example, if the attack is in a home, the attacker is much more likely to know if a gun is owned in the home and who might have access to it. By contrast, when an attack occurs in a public place, the attackers don't know who they have to be concerned might have a gun to stop them. [Residences were included in the FBI's total deaths only "where casualties occurred inside a private residence before a shooter moved to a public area, those incidents were categorized at the location where the public was more at risk." For example, their cases would involve a residence and then a school.] This also has been the breakdown of data in academic studies (see point 3).

3. From 1980 to 2013, the original FBI definition of "mass killings" had been "four or more victims slain, in one event, in one location," "within one event, in at least one or more public locations, such as, a workplace, school," and the offender is not included in the victim count (CRS, July 30, 2015). In 2013, the definition was changed to "three or more killings." The vast majority of academics have continued to use the four or more definition. This includes researchers such as James Alan Fox. See also studies years ago such as Grant Duwe, Tom Kovandzic, and Carl Moody, "The Impact of Right-to-Carry Concealed Firearm Laws on Mass Public Shootings," Homicide Studies, Nov. 1, 2002. Adam Lankford, "Public Mass Shooters and Firearms: A Cross-National Study of 171 Countries," Violence and Victims, January 2016. Lott and Landes, 2001 and John Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime," University of Chicago Press, 3rd edition, 2010. Even groups such as Bloomberg's Everytown, which Snopes cites approvingly, have recently used the four or more definition. The other organization that Snopes cites approvingly, Mother Jones, also has used the four or more definition for most of the period and has only recently well after we did this report started using the three or more definition.

These points were also originally used in the 1999 and 2001 versions of research on mass public shootings by William Landes and John Lott. Of course, it is hard to ignore the statements from some of these killers about why they pick the targets that they do (more details on this in Lott's book are available here).
Gun-free zones are defined as places where general citizens couldn't carry guns.
- Places where only police or military police are classified as gun-free zones.

Stationing a uniformed police officer or security guard in a public area often only gives a false sense of security. Knowing that the uniformed officer is the only person with a gun makes things quite simple for attackers. They need only kill him first. It is the equivalent of having them with a neon sign saying "shoot me first." The media fact checkers seem unwilling to accept is that concealed handgun permit holders take away that strategic advantage from the killers. See this quote as an example of the

"A deputy in uniform has an extremely difficult job in stopping these attacks," Sarasota County, Florida, Sheriff Kurt Hoffman told RCI. "These terrorists have huge strategic advantages in determining the time and place of attacks. They can wait for a deputy to leave the area, or pick an undefended location. Even when police or deputies are in the right place at the right time, those in uniform who can be readily identified as guards may as well be holding up neon signs saying, 'Shoot me first.' My deputies know that we cannot be everywhere."

It is the same reason that air marshals aren't in uniform.

- Places, where it is illegal to carry a permitted concealed handgun, are classified as gun-free zones.

Depending on the state bans on carrying in certain areas.

- Places that are posted as not allowing permitted concealed handgun. A few examples:

Fort Hood Shootings 2009 and 2014

The many school shootings keep on occurring in those schools where permitted concealed handguns are banned (e.g., Parkland 2018, Sante Fe 2018)

In Alameda County, a may issue county, there were only 85 people with concealed handgun permits at the end of 2011 out of an adult population of 1.2 million, a rate of 0.007 percent. Those with permits were mainly judges, prosecutors, and wealthy businessmen.

In Orange County, a may issue county, there were only 551 people with concealed handgun permits out of an adult population of 2.26 million, a rate of 0.02 percent. Those with permits were mainly judges, prosecutors, and wealthy businessmen.

ORIGINAL POST: Why does anyone pay attention to Bloomberg's claims on guns? Take their previous discussions on mass public shootings. As we have previously pointed out, Bloomberg's groups have made serious errors on the number (see also here) and trends of school shootings. Well, that hasn't stopped the media from sympathetically covering Everytown for Gun Safety's recent report on mass shootings (see also here).

Everytown for Gun Safety's recent report on mass shootings contains many errors. In addition, it muddies the discussion on mass public shootings by including shootings in private homes along with ones in public places, and the vast majority of the cases they include are in private homes. But there is a distinction between what motivates mass public shooters who are committing their crimes to get media attention and those who engage in attacks in private residences.

There are seven mass public shootings since at least 1950 that have not been part of some other crime where at least four people have been killed in an area where general civilians are allowed to have guns. These are the International House of Pancakes (IHOP) restaurant in Carson City, Nevada on September 6, 2011, the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Tucson, Arizona on January 8, 2011, [UPDATE] the Dallas shooting of police on July 7, 2016 that left five dead, [UPDATE] the Kalamazoo shooting on February 20, 2016 where four people died in one attack at a Cracker Barrel restaurant and two others in another one (while the Cracker Barrel restaurant didn't ban guns, Uber does ban its drivers from carrying guns and the killer was on the job when he did the shootings and the shooting was done while he was in his car); Las Vegas shooting on October 1, 2017 that left 58 dead [UPDATE]; Melcroft, Pennsylvania attack that left four dead on January 28, 2018 [UPDATE]; and the First Baptist Church in tiny Sutherland Springs, Texas, on November 5th, 2017 claimed 26 lives [UPDATE]. With the new data through June 2019, there are now eight shootings in gun-free zones [UPDATE]. We had previously missed the Radisson Hotel killer on December 30, 1999.

Thus, while CPRC's research and that by Landes and Lott looks at Mass public shootings focuses on the killings where the point of the attack is simply to kill as many people as possible, Bloomberg's numbers overwhelmingly involve killings that have occurred within residences.

The FBI definition of mass public shootings excludes " shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence" or that were part of some other crime. The FBI also defines "public" places as " includ[ing] commercial areas (divided into malls, businesses open to pedestrian traffic, and businesses closed to pedestrian traffic), educational environments (divided into schools [pre-kindergarten through 12th grade] and IHEs), open spaces, government properties (divided into military and other government properties), houses of worship, and health care facilities." For almost thirty years, the FBI defined mass shootings as involving four or more people killed. A complete discussion of the definition and the history of it is available here.

Here are some general points about how to classify mass public shootings that have occurred in gun-free zones.

1) A lot of work is involved in obtaining information on whether the attacks occurred in gun-free zones. This includes calling the businesses or other facilities involved. But many times those organizations are uncooperative and in those cases much time is spent contacting individuals in the area of the attack and asking them if they can provide pictures or other information on the facilities. Indeed, the media virtually always refuses to mention whether the attack occurred in a gun-free zone.

Unfortunately, Everytown for Gun Safety/Mayors Against Illegal Guns did not do this work, and they have also inaccurately stated, ignored, or simply missed facts that are readily available in news stories.

2) What motivates mass public shootings where the killer is trying to kill or injure as many people as possible to get publicity is quite different from what motivates robbers or gang fights (see Lott and Landes). The solutions to these two types of attacks are also vastly different. The issue of gun-free zones is particularly important for mass public shootings.

3) The word "public" is also key to these cases. Shootings that occur in people's homes will often involve killers who know if guns are owned in the home. And if there is a gun in the home, the killer will know who has access to it. The FBI also defines "public" places as "includ[ing] commercial areas (divided into malls, businesses open to pedestrian traffic, and businesses closed to pedestrian traffic), educational environments (divided into schools [pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade] and IHEs), open spaces, government properties (divided into military and other government properties), houses of worship, and healthcare facilities" (p. 12).

4) There is also the distinction between right-to-carry and may-issue laws. If virtually no one, especially general civilians, is allowed to get a concealed handgun permit as occurs in most may-issue jurisdictions, the area is essentially a gun-free zone.

Our past work has also collected information on which schools are gun-free zones and which ones are not.

Cases Bloomberg's Everytown organization incorrectly reports as mass public shootings in gun-free zones

The Bloomberg discussions are indented and put in block quotes. After the quotes there is an explanation for why they shouldn't be counted as mass public shootings. The Bloomberg report doesn't number these events, but we will assign numbers just to make them easier to reference.

FACTS: There was not a mass public shooting at Ali's Market. Only one person was killed at that store. Permitted concealed handguns can deter many attacks from occurring and can limit the harm that does occur. But permit holders aren't expected to limit the harm for those attacks that do occur to zero. Permitted concealed handguns deter mass shootings because they can limit the harm and take away the incentive that these killers obtain from their warped desire to get media attention.

FACTS: Whether one is looking at the attacks at the Washington Navy Yard or Fort Hood, letting military police carry guns is much different than letting other soldiers protect themselves. While military police tend to be at the entrances to military bases, they largely patrol the rest of the base in the same way that police patrol a city. One no more expects military police to instantly arrive at the scene of a mass public shooting than one expects police to arrive at one. In Alexis' attack, since he worked at the Navy Yard, he knew what entrance to go to that would have only one guard and that is where he went. For related discussions see here and here.

FACTS: This shooting was part of another crime, a robbery of illegal marijuana (see point 2 in the introduction). It was not a mass public shooting where the point of the crime was to kill as many people as possible so as to obtain media coverage.

FACTS: New York is a may issue state, not a right-to-carry state. We don't yet have the number of civilian concealed carry permits, but they seem to be extremely rare. The possession of a handgun in New York State requires a NYS Pistol Permit. In 2012 there were only 154 permits issued to own a pistol in Herkimer county. Over the previous five years, there were 667 permits issued, though not all over those permits own a handgun would have been active at the beginning of 2013 (that implies that there were less than 1.39% of the adult population that even legally owns a handgun). When talking to the pistol permit office, Lott was told that there were zero restricted licenses that allowed people to carry for business purposes (concealed carry licenses that allow a business owner to carry in the course of doing business) and zero restricted for self-defense purposes (e.g., a woman who is being actively stalked).

Report from February 2013: At this point, the Everytown for Gun Safety report mainly repeats cases previously discussed by Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns on MASS SHOOTING INCIDENTS, JANUARY 2009-JANUARY 2013. An earlier report on the problems with their claims about the attacks not being in gun-free zones was never corrected. Here is the analysis of these previous cases.

5) Geneva County, AL, 3/10/09: The shooter killed ten, including four members of his family, before killing himself.
Shooter Name: Michael Kenneth McLendon, 28
Gun details: Bushmaster AR-15, SKS Rifle, Shotgun, and .38 Pistol
Ammo details: Police recovered additional ammunition from his vehicle after the shooting.
Gun acquired: Unknown
Prohibiting criteria: The shooter had no criminal record and there is no indication he was prohibited from owning a gun.
Not a gun-free zone: It was lawful to carry a firearm in the public intersection and gas station where two of the individuals were shot.

FACTS: Nine people were killed by McLendon. In the first shooting in a house on Pullum Street, five people were killed. There was also a second shooting in another home that left two people dead. Neither were public places. It is true that two individuals were killed in separate public places as McLendon was driving along, but that is not a multiple victim public shooting in which at least four are killed in a public place. However, MAIG's report implies that all these shootings occurred in a public places.

6) Lakewood, WA, 11/29/09: The shooter killed four police officers in a Tacoma Coffee shop, eluding police for two days before being killed as he fled.
Shooter Name: Maurice Clemmons, 37
Gun details: When he was killed, he was in possession of the handgun of one of the officers he had killed.
Ammo details: Unknown
Gun acquired: Unknown
Prohibiting criteria: The shooter was prohibited from purchasing a firearm, having been charged with at least 13 felonies across two states. He had posted bail for raping a child just six days before the attack.
Not a gun-free zone: The police officers were armed at the time of the shooting.

FACTS: Lott and Landes didn't define gun-free zones in terms of whether police were allowed to carry guns, but whether private citizens are able to readily obtain concealed handguns for their protection. What is important is that the coffee shop was posted to prevent concealed carry permit holders from carrying. Presumably MAIG understood this point and that is the reason why they focused on police officers being able to carry in this venue. Obviously, however, on-duty police can carry any place. The problem for uniformed police is that they provide an easily identifiable target and it is easy to take them out. Possibly if the attacker had to worry about permit holders who he could not identify, it would have dissuaded him from attacking. While Lott had checked when this event originally occurred, he reconfirmed this information with Dave Workman who lived nearby via email on January 8, 2013.

FACTS: This facility informed Lott in April 2009 that they did not allow guns in the facility for either the people living there or the staff. He called up to ask what their policies had been before the attack.

Here are places listed by Bloomberg's group that may have allowed people with permits to carry in places but that made it extremely difficult or impossible for civilians to get a concealed handgun permit.

10) Northridge, CA, 12/2/12: The shooter arrived at an unlicensed boarding house on Devonshire street, reportedly in search of his girlfriend, and after a dispute shot and killed four people out- side.
Shooter Name: Ka Pasasouk, 31
Gun details: semiautomatic handgun
Ammo details: Unknown
Gun acquired: Unknown
Prohibiting criteria: The shooter was prohibited from possessing guns, having been convicted for car theft and felony robbery. While on probation in September 2012, he was arrested again for possession of methamphetamine. According to the district attorney, a prosecutor then released him on probation over the objection of probation officials, who believed he posed a threat to the safety of the community.
Not a gun-free zone: Permit holders were not prohibited from carrying guns in this area.

11) East Oakland, CA, 3/21/09: The shooter used a semiautomatic handgun to kill two police of- ficers after they stopped his car and then fled on foot to an apartment where he killed two SWAT officers with an assault weapon and injured a third before being killed by police.
Shooter Name: Lovelle Mixon
Gun details: 9mm semiautomatic handgun and SKS assault-style rifle
Ammo details: Police said the assault weapon had a high-capacity magazine.
Gun acquired: The shooter took part in a home invasion robbery in Modesto, CA, on February 21 2009 in which a rifle was reported stolen. Police did not comment on whether the stolen rifle was the one used in the shooting.
Prohibiting criteria: The shooter had a lengthy criminal history, including a conviction for armed battery, which would have prohibited him from possessing a gun, and he was on parole for assault with a deadly weapon at the time of the shootings.
Not a gun-free zone: Two of the victims were shot on a public roadway - the 7400 block of Macarthur Boulevard in East Oakland - where no state law would have prohibited a citizen with the appropriate per- mit to carry a gun. All of the police officers killed in the incident were armed.

12) Medford, NY, 6/9/11: The shooter killed four people at a pharmacy, Haven Drugs, and stole thousands of hydrocodone pills before fleeing in a vehicle. During the trial he acknowledged that he and his wife were addicted to prescription medication.
Shooter Name: David Laffer
Gun details: A .45 caliber handgun was used in the shooting. Several other legally registered guns werealso recovered from the shooter's home.
Ammo details: Unknown
Gun acquired: Unknown
Prohibiting criteria: The gun was legally registered to the shooter, and there is no evidence he was prohibited from possessing a gun. But five months before the shooting, Suffolk County Detective Kenneth Ripp investigated an identity theft claim made by the shooter's mother, who said the shooter had stolen her debit card. After questioning the shooter and his mother, Ripp advised the Suffolk County Pistol License Bureau that the shooter was dangerous and that his guns should be confiscated. Despite Ripp's report, the guns were not removed.
Not a gun-free zone: We could find no evidence that Haven Drugs posted a sign or had a policy prohibit- ing the carrying of firearms. Current employees declined to comment.

13) Brockport, NY, 2/14/09: The shooter killed a nurse in the Lakeside Memorial Hospital parking lot and a motorist who intervened, and wounded the motorist's girlfriend. The shooter had been fired from the hospital after the nurse filed a sexual harassment complaint against him. He then drove 50 miles and killed another nurse - who had filed a similar complaint against the shooter - and her husband in their home.
Shooter Name: Frank Garcia, 34
Gun details: .40 caliber Glock handgun
Ammo details: Unknown
Gun acquired: Unknown
Prohibiting criteria: There is no evidence that the shooter was prohibited from owning a gun. However, he had applied for concealed carry permits and been denied three times. In his 1995 application, he omit- ted information about his criminal record - including arrests for criminal possession of a weapon, assault, and harassment. In 2001 and 2006 he made further omissions, and was evaluated as lacking moral character. But in 2007 a judge reversed the denial and granted Garcia a concealed weapon permit.
Not a gun-free zone: We found no indication that permit holders were prohibited from carrying guns in this area at the time of the incident.

FACTS: All these cities either forbid or make it incredibly difficult for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns for protection. In Boston, it is so bad that even off-duty and retired police are regularly denied unrestricted license to carry permits. Northridge, CA is part of Los Angeles County, which refuses to issue permits to regular citizens. In September 2011, there were 240 permits in all of Los Angeles County when the population was about 7.6 million adults. That equals a permit rate of 0.0032%. Of the 240 permits, most go to judges and reserve deputies (who are big campaign donors). Ten percent of permit holders are on Sheriff Lee Baca's " gift list " In addition, the attack was at a residential dwelling, not a public place.

Similarly, East Oakland, California is part of Alameda County. In 2010, Alameda County had granted concealed handgun permits to 75 people out of an 1,182,534 - a permit rate of 0.006%.

Just as with Herkimer, NY; Medford in Suffolk County, New York, and Brockport in Monroe County, New York were similarly very restrictive in issuing may issue permits. In Suffolk County, the police and sheriff's departments each handle permits in half of the permits for the county. For the sheriff's office, Robert E. Draffin (the Suffolk County Sheriff's Freedom of information officer) informed us that were 569 sportsman permits (limited to carrying to or from a shooting range or to go hunting) and 79 business permits (where a business owner is allowed to carry only in the course of doing business). For the police department, Inspector Derrocco (613-852-6000, ask for pistol permit department) noted the department "virtually never gives out permits for anything other than sportsman to carry to and from the range and for premises and dwellings." Given that there are about 1.2 million adults in Suffolk County, even assuming that the police department issued permits at the same rate as the sheriff's office, this implies a permit rate of about 0.1 percent and virtually none of these permits would have allowed a concealed handgun to be carried in the pharmacy where the attack occurred. In addition, it should be mentioned that Riccardo McCray was a gang member.

14) Oak Creek, WI, 8/5/12: The shooter killed six people at a Sikh temple and injured three others, including a responding police officer, before killing himself.
Shooter Name: Wade Michael Page, 40
Gun details: 9mm semiautomatic handgun
Ammo details: Page reportedly bought three 19-round magazines when he purchased the gun.
Gun acquired: Page acquired the gun at a local gun shop a week before the shooting.
Prohibiting criteria: Page was involved with the white supremacist movement but he does not appear to have been prohibited from purchasing a gun. Federal officials investigated Page's ties to supremacist groups more than once prior to the shooting, but did not collect enough evidence to open an investigation.

FACTS: From FoxNews.com: "No guns [were] allowed in the temple," Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. "Everyone knows that it's not allowed, anywhere in the temple."

FACTS: Lott spoke the spa after the attack and was told that the killer knew "nobody there had a gun." It was a family establishment, and the killer knew the family's policy on guns in the workplace. The person at the spa indicated that they were sure that neither the sisters nor their husbands had guns at the spa and that the killer who was the brother of the women knew that was the case. While the official policy at the spa isn't clear because the conversation was very short, the important thing was that the killer knew that there were no guns for people to defend themselves there. This was a small family owned establishment so it is most likely that this was the official policy of the family. Note that they have the wrong date on this event. (UPDATE: Mayors Against Illegal Guns originally claimed that this event occurred on February 22nd, but the event actually occurred on February 20, 2012. After Lott wrote his analysis, they corrected the data but did not update their discussion of gun-free zones.) Note also that the business has since closed.

16) Hialeah, FL, 6/6/10: The shooter killed four women, including his wife - who had just separat- ed from him. He injured three others before shooting and killing himself. The shooting occurred in Yoyito-Cafe Restaurant, where the shooter's wife was employed as a waitress, and in the park- ing lot immediately outside.
Shooter Name: Gerardo Regalado, 38
Gun details: .45 caliber handgun
Ammo details: Unknown
Gun acquired: The shooter had a concealed weapons permit.
Prohibiting criteria: There is no evidence that the shooter was prohibited from owning a gun. However, relatives said the shooter had abused and terrorized women in the past, and had been imprisoned in Cuba for a particularly violent incident, but he did not have a criminal record in the United States.
Not a gun-free zone: We could find no indication that guns were prohibited in this area. Guns are prohibited in Florida restaurants only in areas primarily devoted to the serving of alcohol.

17) Washington, DC, 3/30/10: Three gunmen killed four and wounded five in retaliation for an-other murder.
Shooter Name: Nathaniel D. Simms, 26; Orlando Carter, 20, and unnamed 14-year-old juvenile
Gun details: An AK-47 assault rifle and 9mm and .45-caliber handguns
Ammo details: Unknown
Gun acquired: Unknown
Prohibiting criteria: The adults were reported to have lengthy criminal histories, which prohibited them from purchasing guns, and the 14-year-old was too young to purchase or own a gun.

18) Mount Airy, NC, 11/1/09: The shooter killed four people outside a television store before eventually surrendering to the police.
Shooter Name: Marcos Chavez Gonzalez, 29
Gun details: Assault rifle
Ammo details: Unknown
Gun acquired: Unknown
Not a gun-free zone: It was lawful to carry a firearm in the area of the shooting.

FACTS: Indications are that the attack was part of gang related crime. As explained above, that would exclude it from the mass public shootings done specifically to harm people as distinct from other types of violent crime.
Other recent cases pointed to by gun control advocates

2) San Francisco, January 12, 2015: four were killed in a stolen parked car.

3) Palestine Texas, November 16, 2015: 6 killed on a residential property

4) Houston Texas, August 10, 2015: 8 killed in a residential property

5) Bulington, Washington, September 23, 2016: mall shooting

6) Orlando, Florida, June 5, 2017: 5 killed at office

More detailed information on other cases
There are a few other cases that we have collected that we will link to here.

Orlando business shooting, June 5, 2017, A gunman fatally shot five of his former coworkers then killed himself during a mass shooting at Fiamma, an Orange County business, Monday morning, according to sheriff's officials. Called business and was told that this business didn't allow employees to have weapons there.

Yet another mall shooting where guns were banned: Monroeville Mall near Pittsburgh, February 8, 2015

The Melbourne Square Mall in Florida is yet another gun-free zone, January 17, 2015

Seattle Pacific University shooting took place in yet another gun-free zone, June 5, 2014

6 killed, seven wounded in Mass Public Shooting in Santa Barbara, a giant gun-free zone, May 24, 2014

Mass shooting yesterday at FedEx facility in Kennesaw Georgia took place in yet another "gun-free zone", April 30, 2014

Maryland Mall Shooting at yet another gun free zone, January 25, 2014

At a tribal court hearing over an eviction of Cherie Lash Rhodes, Alturas, California (February 20, 2014).

The Azana Salon & Spa shooting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (November, 2012).

Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, Minnesota on September 27, 2012. Talked to Joe Bailey who has worked at the comapny since 2007 and he informed us that the factory did not allow permitted concealed handguns there before or after the attack.

Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting (July, 2012). The Cinemark movie theater chain posted signs at their theaters ( See here).

Cafe Racer, Seattle, Washington, four killed at restaurant (May 30, 2012).

Another shooting in a another gun free zone: Binghamton, NY(April, 2009).

Atlantis Plastics, Inc shooting on June 25, 2008 left 5 murdered at a factory in Henderson, Kentucky ( see here).

Trolley Square Mall in Utah (February, 2007).

Omaha, Nebraska mall shooting (December 2007).

John Lott has about 327 postings on gun-free zones available here.

For those who object to the New York Times list of mass public shootings, the very beginning of this post also shows a graphic for the last twenty years and the rate of shootings in gun-free zones is also high. Given that very few states had right-to-carry laws prior to 1977, to the extent that the New York Times missed attacks, our numbers will likely underestimate the rate of attacks in gun-free zones.

UPDATE: Everytown provides a response to our post here.

Regarding the count of whether mass public shootings occurred in gun-free zones, Everytown brings up a total of four cases.

- Two of the four cases that they raise were cases that we agree with and clearly listed as cases where a shooting had occurred where general citizens were able to have guns: The IHOP shooting in Carson City and the Tucson, AZ shooting with Giffords.

- On the Herkimer county case, note what we pointed out above that Everytown didn't respond to: there were zero restricted licenses that allowed people to carry for business purposes (concealed carry licenses that allow a business owner to carry in the course of doing business) and zero restricted for self defense purposes (e.g., a woman who is being actively stalked). Even less than 1.4% of the adult population even owns a handgun in the country. A license to own a handgun is not the same being able to carry it.

Why ignore our points in writing up their responses? If Everytown had responses, you would think that they would provide them.

Biker gang fight in Texas May 2015. Gang fight doesn't meet FBI criteria.

(Visited 30009 times, 8 visits today)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UPDATED: Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 94% of attacks since 1950

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
UPDATED on July 6th, 2019: Original title: "More misleading information from Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety on guns: 'Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings,' Showing how mass public shootings keep occurring in gun-free zones" Originally posted on September 9, 2014. While the first part of the discussion here goes through each mass public shooting from 2009...

# data[].attributes.body
Arming teachers is the choice of law abiding citizens who have no intent to harm but to protect and educate their kids, will give them the ability to further protect and educate their kids.

# data[].attributes.body
Arming our teachers could lead to a higher chance of students getting their hands on a weapon and increase the likelihood of accidental shootings. Additionally, requiring teachers to carry takes funding away from strategies that have proven more effective.
"adding school counselors and school psychologists; banning assault weapons; and requiring universal background checks for all gun purchases."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Columbine. Newtown. Parkland. These are some of the first places that come to mind when the topic is school shootings.

But every state in the union has had at least one incident of school gun violence since 1970, according to federal data. Most have had dozens. California and Texas have suffered well over 100.

Last year stands alone as the worst on record. Ninety-four incidents of school gun violence were documented, an increase of nearly 60 percent over the previous record high in 2016.

Sadly, some state lawmakers have spent this year's legislative sessions trying to put more guns in schools. Most of their proposals involve arming teachers and other school staff (or increasing that number in states that already allow educators to carry guns).

Research indicates that arming teachers actually makes students less safe.

Putting more firearms in schools increases the possibility that a troubled student could get their hands on a gun as well as the likelihood of accidental shootings. It also takes funding and focus away from strategies proven to make schools safer, such as:

adding school counselors and school psychologists;

banning assault weapons;

and requiring universal background checks for all gun purchases.

President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos have backed the idea of arming educators. DeVos wants to use federal grant money intended for academics and enrichment to purchase firearms for teachers, even though the idea is widely rejected by educators.

A March 2018 Gallup poll found that 73 percent of U.S. teachers do NOT want to carry guns in school.

Here are the states where some lawmakers are still pushing to arm teachers:

FLORIDA

The Florida Senate passed a bill this week that would allow any teacher who undergoes training to carry firearms into the classroom.

The Florida Education Association opposes arming teachers. Instead, they advocate adding mental health staff in schools.

A group of about 150 students from the March for Our Lives movement protested the bill at the statehouse. The group was founded by students who survived the horrific 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., last February.

MISSOURI

Missouri's HB 575 includes a controversial-and frightening-amendment that legalizes concealed carry on college campuses. That means any student, staff member, or visitor with the right permit could walk around campus with a loaded gun. As written, the bill also forbids state colleges from creating their own policies to prohibit guns.

At a hearing on April 18, one person spoke in favor of the bill and 16 spoke out against it, including university students and faculty. The Missouri Education Association opposes the measure. Regardless, the House passed the bill and sent it to the Senate.

MONTANA

Earlier this month, the Montana legislature passed several bills that would result in more guns in schools. HB 567 allows any school employee to become a "school marshal," which authorizes them to carry a gun on school grounds.

Lawmakers also approved a pair of bills that remove local authority to prohibit the concealed carry of firearms in public places, including schools. Only one of those bills could be vetoed by Gov. Steve Bullock; the other, a legislative referendum, puts the item on the ballot in November 2020. The Montana Federation of Public Employees President (MFPE), which represents the state's teachers and other public employees, opposes those bills.

Related: MFPE President Eric Feaver gave passionate testimony against another measure, SB 304, which would allow legislators to carry concealed weapons in the statehouse.

NORTH CAROLINA

A pair of bills could bring disturbing changes to North Carolina schools. HB 216 would allow school staff to carry concealed handguns in schools. SB 192 adds an incentive. That measure offers a 5 percent salary increase to teachers who undergo law enforcement training so they can serve both as educators and as sworn law enforcement officers.

The North Carolina Association of Educators has been outspoken in its opposition. "We're currently ranked 50th in the country in addressing the psychological needs of our students," said NCAE President Mark Jewell. "We don't need guns. We need more nurses, more counselors, more school psychologists."

OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma allows educators to have guns in school only if they have completed armed guard or reserve peace officer training. But HB 2336, an expansion bill, would allow any school employee with a concealed carry permit to walk the halls with a loaded gun.

The Oklahoma Education Association opposes the bill. "What we need are counselors in our schools," OEA President Alicia Priest told KOCO News. "What we need is mental health access. It would save more lives to fund our schools by allowing us the funding we need to hire counselors."

TEXAS

Texas law already permits some school staff to carry guns. Now, the Texas Senate has approved a bill that would lift the requirement that school marshals keep firearms under lock and key. Another bill eliminates the cap on the number of marshals permitted on a school campus.

The Texas State Teachers Association opposes the expansion and says lawmakers should instead focus on improving school funding and mental health services.

Last May, eight Texas students and two educators were killed and 13 others were injured when a student opened fire at Santa Fe High School. It was only the second deadliest school shooting of 2018. Just three months earlier, the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School resulted in 17 deaths and 17 injuries.

What you can do:

Learn more about what works to prevent gun violence in schools. Then ask those who represent you in Congress to sign onto a resolution NOT to use federal funds to arm educators.

Connect with Everytown for Gun Safety to fight for common sense laws that save lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lawmakers in these 6 states are pushing to arm teachers | NEA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Columbine. Newtown. Parkland. These are some of the first places that come to mind when the topic is school shootings. But every state in the union has had at least one incident of school gun violence since 1970, according to federal data. Most have had dozens. California and Texas have suffered well over 100.

# data[].attributes.body
More guns means more crime. Less access to guns means less crime. However, this is not true since criminals will find a way to due harm, since they are breaking the law. More guns with law abiding citizen gives more opportunity to prevent another mass casualty from happening.

# data[].attributes.body
From 2019 to 2020, the relative increase in the rate of firearm-related deaths of all types (suicide, homicide, unintentional, and undetermined) among children and adolescents was 29.5% — more than twice as high as the relative increase in the general population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our apologies. An error occurred while setting your user cookie. Please set your browser to accept cookies to continue.

NEJM.org uses cookies to improve performance by remembering your session ID when you navigate from page to page. This cookie stores just a session ID; no other information is captured. Accepting the NEJM cookie is necessary to use the website.

1-800-843-6356 | [email protected]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Current Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents in the United States | NEJM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Correspondence from The New England Journal of Medicine — Current Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents in the United States

# data[].attributes.body
https://theconversation.com/arming-teachers-an-effective-security-measure-or-a-false-sense-of-security-183909

One study found that highly trained police in gunfights hit their target only 18% of the time. Even if teachers, who would likely have less training, achieve the same accuracy, four or five of every six bullets fired by a teacher would hit something or someone other than the shooter. Further, a teacher responding with force to a shooter may be mistaken for the perpetrator by law enforcement or by armed colleagues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Even trained police officers often miss their target during gunfights. RichLegg / Getty Images

In the wake of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, some elected officials are making calls anew forteachers to be armed and trained to use firearms to protect the nation's schools. To shine light on the matter, The Conversation reached out to Aimee Huff and Michelle Barnhart, two Oregon State University scholars who have studied the ins and outs of putting guns in the hands of the nation's teachers as a way to protect students.
1. What does the public think about arming teachers?

According to a 2021 poll, 43% of Americans supported policies that allow school personnel to carry guns in schools.

But if you take a closer look, you see that most of that support comes from Republicans and gun-owners. For instance, 66% of Republican respondents expressed support for such policies, versus just 24% of Democratic respondents. And 63% of gun owners supported allowing school personnel to carry guns, versus just 33% of non-gun owners.

The majority of teachers, parents and students oppose allowing teachers to carry guns.

The largest teachers unions, including the National Education Association, also oppose arming teachers, arguing that bringing more guns into schools " makes schools more dangerous and does nothing to shield our students and educators from gun violence."

These teachers unions advocate a preventive approach that includes more gun regulations.

While the public is justifiably concerned with eliminating school shootings, there is disagreement over the policies and actions that would be most effective. A 2021 study found that 70% of Americans supported the idea of armed school resource officers and law enforcement in schools, but only 41% supported the idea of training teachers to carry guns in schools.

In our research on how Americans think about the rights and responsibilities related to armed self-defense, we even find disagreement among conservative gun owners over how to best protect schoolchildren. Some advocate arming teachers, while other gun owners believe guns in schools ultimately make children less safe. These conservative opponents of arming teachers instead support fortifying the building's design and features.

After the massacre in Uvalde, we are seeing renewed calls from politicians to arm teachers and provide them with specialized training.

However, amid conflicting reports about whether police officers engaged the Robb Elementary School shooter, there are renewed questions about whether armed teachers would make a difference. Police have acknowledged they didn't enter the school even as kids frantically dialed 911.

Given that there were also armed officers present at the Columbine and Parkland school massacres in 1999 and 2018, respectively, the public is understandably right to wonder whether armed teachers can effectively neutralize a shooter. Amid reports that trained and experienced police officers may have been unable or unwilling to intervene against the Uvalde shooter, it's not clear whether teachers would be, either.

2. What are the potential drawbacks of arming teachers?

Arming teachers introduces risks to students and staff, as well as school districts themselves. These include the risk of teachers accidentally shooting themselves or students and fellow staff. There are also moral and legal risks associated with improper or inaccurate defensive use of a firearm - even for teachers who have undertaken specialized firearms training.

One study found that highly trained police in gunfights hit their target only 18% of the time. Even if teachers, who would likely have less training, achieve the same accuracy, four or five of every six bullets fired by a teacher would hit something or someone other than the shooter. Further, a teacher responding with force to a shooter may be mistaken for the perpetrator by law enforcement or by armed colleagues.

Introducing guns to the school environment also poses everyday risks. Armed teachers may unintentionally discharge their firearm. For instance, an armed police officer accidentally discharged his weapon in his office at a school in Alexandria, Virginia in 2018. Guns can also fall into the wrong hands. Research on shootings that took place in hospital emergency rooms found that in 23% of the cases, the weapon used was a gun the perpetrator took from a hospital security guard.

Students could also access firearms that are improperly stored or mishandled. Improper storage is a common problem among American gun owners. In a school setting, this has resulted in students finding a teacher's misplaced firearm, sometimes taking it or reporting it to another school official. News reports show that guns carried into schools have fallen out of teachers' clothing, and have been left in bathrooms and locker rooms. There have also been reports of students stealing guns from teachers.

Insurance companies also see concealed guns on school grounds as creating a heightened liability risk.

Other drawbacks to arming teachers involve the learning environment. In particular, owing to structural racism and discriminatory school security policies, Black high school students are less supportive than white students of arming teachers - 16% versus 26% - and report feeling less safe if teachers are carrying firearms.

3. What are the arguments for arming teachers?

Proponents emphasize that teachers, as Americans, have a right to use firearms to defend themselves against violent crime, including a school shooter. Our research shows that some people interpret their right to armed self-defense as a moral obligation, and argue that teachers have both a right and a responsibility to use firearms to protect themselves and their students.

Parents who regularly carry handguns to protect themselves and their children may take comfort knowing that their child's teacher could perform the role of protector at school.

In a school shooting, where lives can be saved or ended in a matter of seconds, some people may feel more secure believing a shooter would immediately meet armed resistance from a teacher without needing to wait for an armed school officer to respond.

4. Have any school districts allowed teachers to arm themselves?

Yes. Teachers may carry guns at school in districts in at least 19 states. The idea surfaced as a viable policy after the 1999 Columbine shooting, and gained momentum after the 2018 Parkland shooting.

The number of school districts that permit teachers to be armed is difficult to ascertain. Policies vary across states. New York bars school districts from allowing teachers to carry guns, while Missouri and Montana authorize teachers to carry firearms.

5. What were the results?

There are documented incidents of school staff using their firearm to neutralize a shooter. However, researchers have not found evidence that arming teachers increases school safety. Rather, arming teachers may contribute to a false sense of security for teachers, students and the community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arming teachers - an effective security measure or a false sense of security?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the wake of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, some elected officials are making calls anew forteachers to be armed and trained to use firearms to protect the nation's schools.

# data[].attributes.body
Armed teachers, guards bolster school security in Israel | Fox News
Gun Violence - Amnesty International
Advocates say arming Texas school employees won’t cost that much. But many districts don’t want to do it. | The Texas Tribune

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans intent on ensuring a school massacre like the one in Newtown, Conn., never happens again could learn a lot from Israel, where the long menu of precautions includes armed teachers.

The Jewish state, which has long faced threats of terrorist strikes in crowded locations including schools, takes an all-of-the-above approach to safety in the classroom. Fences, metal detectors and armed private guards are part of a strategy overseen by the country's national police. And the idea of armed teachers in the classroom, which stirred much controversy in the wake of the U.S. attack, has long been in practice in Israel, though a minority of them carry weapons today.

Oren Shemtov, CEO of Israel's Academy of Security and Investigation, noted that attacks typically happen in a matter of minutes, and said gun-toting teachers could, at the very least, buy time for kids to escape while police race to the scene.

"Two (armed) teachers would have kept (the Newtown shooter) occupied for 45 seconds each," said Shemtov, who is one of 16 people in Israel authorized to train those who instruct school guards.

Shemtov, a veteran of Israel's security services who has been teaching security methods for 22 years, praised the Newtown teachers who gave their lives trying to protect children, but lamented the fact that they weren't able to shoot back when gunman Adam Lanza opened fire, killing 20 children and six adults before shooting himself in the head as police converged on Sand Hook Elementary School.

"We need to give them the tools to be heroes," Shemtov said. "No one wants to be a hero. They did what they had to do."

Security consultant Dov Zwerling, an Israeli counter-terror police veteran, believes armed guards are crucial for school security.

"From what I know of almost all of the active shooter events in the U.S., almost all of them conclude with the shooter taking his own life the moment he is challenged by the first officer on the scene," Zwerling said. "Why not challenge him earlier?"

Shemtov said the two most critical keys to protecting schools are armed guards and armed teacher response teams. But, as in the U.S., the idea of teachers carrying guns raised some objections in Israel, he said.

"At one point the Interior Ministry mandated that a certain percentage of teachers be armed but because, over time, fewer teachers carried weapons, for a number of reasons, including philosophical objections, and due to increased terror attacks, private guards were mandated at all schools," he said.

School security in Israel is an extension of the comprehensive approach authorities there take to protecting all public places. According to National Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld, police work with the Israeli Defense Force and the private security companies that protect such places as malls, bus stations, schools and universities. A centralized command system allows for quick dissemination of intelligence to every police officer and private guard in the field, he said.

A collective effort among police, private guards and teachers requires that the civilians involved in armed security receive rigorous training. Private guards undergo at least three weeks of advanced training with a 9mm weapon and guards employed for school protection must pass criminal, mental and physical checks.

"A long course, at a minimum of 40-60 hours, is needed so that the instructor can feel out the student," said Shemtov, noting that not all teachers or guards are suited for school protection. "Course candidates should be a certain age, emotionally mature, of a certain mentality, physically healthy - and from there move to training."

In order to station armed guards in U.S. schools, an idea advocated by the National Rifle Association, America could tap a ready pool of qualified candidates, Shemtov said. U.S. soldiers returning from overseas are well suited for school protection, he said, and "instead of returning with nothing to do there's a sea of work" as school guards.

"They're the elite of the American people," Shemtov said. "You have people obligated, morally and ethically to the state, to the flag - this is a soldier. It's a person who went out to do this. All you have to do is give him the appropriate training to do this in the private sector....This is the best of the American people, like they're the best of the Israeli people. They're people who took it upon themselves to help others."
Greg Tepper is a freelance journalist based in Jerusalem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Armed teachers, guards bolster school security in Israel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans intent on ensuring a school massacre like the one in Newtown, Conn., never happens again could learn a lot from Israel, where the long menu of precautions includes armed teachers. The Jewish state, which has long faced threats of terrorist strikes in crowded locations including schools, takes an all-of-the-above approach to safety in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
We find that it is unfair to require a teacher to carry when there are other strategies that have been found more effective and when there are so many teachers uncomfortable with carrying. It is also proven that even when a teacher is armed they won't always be as accurate as those with more training. This would require a multitude of additional training hours put on teachers that will further lower funding in other important areas and affect the teachers negatively.

# data[].attributes.body
"What is being suggested is to allow faculty who are already-proficient gun owners to carry a concealed firearm after they undergo specialized training. These individuals are not intended to replace law enforcement, but to provide protection while waiting for law enforcement to arrive. " San Diego Tribune

The counterclaim is that teachers aren't there to replace law enforcement but to provide more time.

# data[].attributes.body
Allowing school employees to carry concealed guns also makes the job of the police much safer. Concealed carry means that killers won't know who is armed. Even if they take an officer by surprise, they must worry that they are revealing their position to someone else who can stop them.

We find this evidence to support the counter claim that teachers should be armed because it allows for there to be more people involved with disarming the shooter by surprise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
John Lott: Armed teachers can save student lives – Don’t leave children defenseless against school shooters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When teachers are allowed to carry guns in schools they make them safer and protect students.

# data[].attributes.body
Israeli schools have armed guards outside schools rather than arming teachers and it has shown to almost stop school shootings. Israel is in a completely different environment and society however in extreme setting armed schools have helped. School shootings also happen in the matter of minutes and simply buying enough time for students to get out of a similar situation will help, and delay the shooter for the police to arrive.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Bloomberg, guns do not necessarily make the school a safer environment. Often teachers are not properly trained to handle firearms. Plus additional training would take time away from content/strategy training which is already lacking at some schools. There have also been instances of teachers and administration leaving their weapons out to be found and accessed by students.
If the student is responsible for the active shooting in a school, teachers may struggle with the mental weight of shooting their student. There is also the possibility of legal repercussions if parents try to press charges.

# data[].attributes.body
An 8th grade teacher compared armed schools to a prison, where armed teachers are the guards and the students prisoners. Guns create tension and anxiety in the classroom, instead of making students feel safe and protected. Adding guns to the classroom will not create that nurturing environment that students require for learning.

# data[].attributes.body
Rural schools argue that response time of the authorities is too slow, should there be an emergency. We argue that if response times are too slow there should be fundamental changes in the structure of those authorities or hiring a trained SRO to be present at the school.
In addition, how can you guarantee adequate funding, training, and certification for teachers?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HARROLD - All of Harrold Independent School District is packed into a two-story red brick building that sits off U.S. Highway 287, nestled among windmills, a water tower and farmland.

The district serves kids from a 200-square-mile area in Wilbarger County near the Texas-Oklahoma border. Everyone knows everyone in this rural district with 24 employees and 115 students, about 100 of whom commute from other towns.

It takes the county sheriff's department about 15 minutes to respond to the average emergency call. So to close that gap, Superintendent David Thweatt created a plan in 2007 to arm certain staff members, including teachers and administrators.

"We take care of ourselves," Thweatt said. "I don't want to be anybody's victim."

Harrold ISD was the first of more than 170 Texas school districts - mostly in rural or isolated areas - to arm educators and other employees to prevent a possible tragedy. So far, Thweatt said, the armed employees in his district haven't had to pull their guns.

But since the Feb. 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in which 17 people died, districts with such a policy have come under national scrutiny as more politicians have pushed for arming teachers or other school personnel.

Critics argue that allowing guns in schools makes students and staff less safe and adds another burden on schools. But proponents say it helps districts more quickly respond to active shooter situations, and the chosen employees often have to pass psychological or shooting tests.

"People always picture the absentminded woman who couldn't find her gradebook," Thweatt said. "They picture the worst candidate for this. And not everybody in our system is a candidate for this."

"We take care of ourselves."

Texas schools have two options if they want to arm staff members: The Guardian Plan allows local school boards to determine training standards and authorize specific employees to carry on campus at all times. The school marshal program also allows local boards to authorize employees, but they must be specially trained and licensed by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, which oversees the program. Under the marshal program, they can't carry firearms around students.

Both programs require anonymity - only select officials can know who is armed in a school district - and both allow districts to offer armed employees a monetary stipend.

About 10 years ago, following the 2006 Pennsylvania Amish schoolhouse shooting that left five dead and the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting that left more than 30 dead, Thweatt created the Guardian Plan, fearing a similar incident could happen in Harrold.

Thweatt wrote the policy, got school board members' approval and had a team of attorneys look over the proposal to ensure it didn't violate state or federal law. After Harrold ISD began arming employees, Thweatt shared what they had done with the Texas Association of School Boards, which compiles school district policies, and the idea began to spread.

Harrold ISD employees chosen to carry at school go through at least 15 hours of training that includesvideos of hostage scenarios and shooting drills.

Thweatt said he uses his own judgment to determine whether an employee is a good candidate for such a potentially deadly responsibility.

"There's no one on the Guardian team that I haven't worked closely with for at least three or four years," he said.

The Guardian Plan began receiving more attention from other school districts after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, which left 28 dead - including 20 children and the shooter.

Texas Association of School Boards spokesperson Barbara Williams said at least 172 Texas districts have adopted the Guardian Plan. Because no state agency has responsibility for the plan, local school boards set training standards and decide who is approved to carry concealed handguns on school property.

At Fayetteville ISD, which adopted the plan in February, and Keene ISD, which adopted it in 2016, superintendents Jeff Harvey and Ricky Stephens said every armed employee in their districts has to take a mandatory psychological test administered by an outside party.

While Fayetteville ISD doesn't require a specific amount of firearms training, Harvey said most staff members do around 20 hours per year - which can include going to a shooting range. Keene ISD goes a step further, Stephens said, requiring 80 hours of initial training and 40 hours annually after that.

After the Sandy Hook shooting - and amid mounting criticism that the Guardian Plan didn't require police-style training - the Legislature passed the Protection of Texas Children Act in 2013.

The bill, authored by state Rep. Jason Villalba, R-Dallas, created the school marshal program - which President Donald Trump praised during a meeting of governors at the White House after the Parkland shooting.

"It's understandable that parents would be nervous about having guns on campus," Villalba told The Dallas Morning News in February. "That's why we created this to be tailored and narrow - so that the educators will also be highly trained peace officers. And so far, the response has been favorable."

Districts with school marshals are regulated by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, which develops the 80-hour police-style training employees take every two years. The training includes a mental health evaluation and firearms proficiency requirements.

Schools can designate one marshal for every 400 students or one per building. Unlike guardians, marshals aren't allowed to carry guns around students and have to keep them in a lockbox.

Although the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement would not release the number of districts with marshals, saying it's confidential information, Villalba told Politico in February that he believes it is greater than 20 but fewer than 50. One of these districts is Wylie ISD, located in Taylor County.

Craig Bessent, the district's assistant superintendent of school operations, said he prefers the marshal program because it's stricter than "just somebody carrying a gun."

"There's been renewed discussion since Florida. People want to know, 'Are my kids going to be protected?'" he said. "We just try to do the best we can, and I'm just sorry we live in these times."

To arm or not to arm?

Although experts said there has been increased interest among Texas school districts in arming educators since the Parkland shooting, that hasn't translated into a spike in districts actually adopting one of the programs.

And some still doubt their effectiveness.

"We're adamantly opposed to arming teachers. That's not what they're meant to do," said Clay Robison, spokesperson for the Texas State Teachers Association. "You don't address gun violence in the schools by putting more guns in schools. You sell more guns that way."

Robison pointed to other safety options districts can use, such as hiring school resource officers - government-employed peace officers placed at schools - or creating their own police departments. According to the Texas Association of School Boards, about 150 districts have their own police departments and more than 250 districts use school resource officers instead. Still, Robison said, those options can be too expensive for smaller districts.

Dallas ISD Police Chief Craig Miller, who spent 30 years in the city's police department before joining the district in 2011, told The Dallas Morning News in February that it's difficult for even veteran officers to react perfectly during a shooting - and to recover psychologically after firing at someone.

Miller said he saw the benefit of school marshals in rural communities, but he's also reluctant to encourage more educators to carry guns into schools.

"One thing that people lose sight of in these shootings is that it takes place in the blink of your eye," Miller told the newspaper. "Even with a school administrator down another hall armed, they may not be able to get there in time to do something."

That debate doesn't seem to be giving people second thoughts in Harrold ISD, where many community members are privately licensed to carry and hunting is popular.

"We think about it, we try and guess who's armed, but I think everyone is pretty indifferent about this," said high school senior Cheyenne Thomas. "We feel safe."

Parent Grace White, who graduated from Harrold ISD in 1994, lives 20 minutes away in Vernon and has two teenagers in the district. She said she doesn't remember any backlash when the district's policy was first initiated because people trusted Thweatt's decision.

And with every school shooting since 2007, including the one in Parkland, White said support for arming their educators has only grown.

"It has given me peace of mind," she said as she watched her 16-year-old son and his peers return from physical education class from her seat high in the wooden bleachers of the school's modest gymnasium. "We all wonder, why aren't bigger schools taking that policy and action yet? I don't understand because it's only getting worse."
Disclosure: The Texas Association of School Boards and the Texas State Teachers Association have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Read related Tribune coverage

Quality journalism doesn't come free

Perhaps it goes without saying - but producing quality journalism isn't cheap. At a time when newsroom resources and revenue across the country are declining, The Texas Tribune remains committed to sustaining our mission: creating a more engaged and informed Texas with every story we cover, every event we convene and every newsletter we send. As a nonprofit newsroom, we rely on members to help keep our stories free and our events open to the public. Do you value our journalism? Show us with your support.

Yes, I'll donate today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
texas association of school boards (tasb)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Texas school began arming teachers with guns in 2007. More than 170 other districts have followed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Harrold Independent School District was the first of many Texas districts - mostly in rural or isolated areas - to arm educators and other employees to prevent a potential school shooting. "I don't want to be anybody's victim," the school's superintendent says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.

This Website Uses Cookies
By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn More
This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Survey Finds Teachers Don’t Want Guns in the Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A survey of educators from across the U.S. by CSUN social work professor Lauren Willner found that teachers overwhelmingly object to arming teachers a way to deter school shootings.

# data[].attributes.body
Arming teachers can potentially be harmful to the student's mentality of school. the inaccuracy of police shootings 'trained officials' are still inaccurate so arming teachers would be even more inaccurate possibly putting more students in harm's way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Even trained police officers often miss their target during gunfights. RichLegg / Getty Images

In the wake of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, some elected officials are making calls anew forteachers to be armed and trained to use firearms to protect the nation's schools. To shine light on the matter, The Conversation reached out to Aimee Huff and Michelle Barnhart, two Oregon State University scholars who have studied the ins and outs of putting guns in the hands of the nation's teachers as a way to protect students.
1. What does the public think about arming teachers?

According to a 2021 poll, 43% of Americans supported policies that allow school personnel to carry guns in schools.

But if you take a closer look, you see that most of that support comes from Republicans and gun-owners. For instance, 66% of Republican respondents expressed support for such policies, versus just 24% of Democratic respondents. And 63% of gun owners supported allowing school personnel to carry guns, versus just 33% of non-gun owners.

The majority of teachers, parents and students oppose allowing teachers to carry guns.

The largest teachers unions, including the National Education Association, also oppose arming teachers, arguing that bringing more guns into schools " makes schools more dangerous and does nothing to shield our students and educators from gun violence."

These teachers unions advocate a preventive approach that includes more gun regulations.

While the public is justifiably concerned with eliminating school shootings, there is disagreement over the policies and actions that would be most effective. A 2021 study found that 70% of Americans supported the idea of armed school resource officers and law enforcement in schools, but only 41% supported the idea of training teachers to carry guns in schools.

In our research on how Americans think about the rights and responsibilities related to armed self-defense, we even find disagreement among conservative gun owners over how to best protect schoolchildren. Some advocate arming teachers, while other gun owners believe guns in schools ultimately make children less safe. These conservative opponents of arming teachers instead support fortifying the building's design and features.

After the massacre in Uvalde, we are seeing renewed calls from politicians to arm teachers and provide them with specialized training.

However, amid conflicting reports about whether police officers engaged the Robb Elementary School shooter, there are renewed questions about whether armed teachers would make a difference. Police have acknowledged they didn't enter the school even as kids frantically dialed 911.

Given that there were also armed officers present at the Columbine and Parkland school massacres in 1999 and 2018, respectively, the public is understandably right to wonder whether armed teachers can effectively neutralize a shooter. Amid reports that trained and experienced police officers may have been unable or unwilling to intervene against the Uvalde shooter, it's not clear whether teachers would be, either.

2. What are the potential drawbacks of arming teachers?

Arming teachers introduces risks to students and staff, as well as school districts themselves. These include the risk of teachers accidentally shooting themselves or students and fellow staff. There are also moral and legal risks associated with improper or inaccurate defensive use of a firearm - even for teachers who have undertaken specialized firearms training.

One study found that highly trained police in gunfights hit their target only 18% of the time. Even if teachers, who would likely have less training, achieve the same accuracy, four or five of every six bullets fired by a teacher would hit something or someone other than the shooter. Further, a teacher responding with force to a shooter may be mistaken for the perpetrator by law enforcement or by armed colleagues.

Introducing guns to the school environment also poses everyday risks. Armed teachers may unintentionally discharge their firearm. For instance, an armed police officer accidentally discharged his weapon in his office at a school in Alexandria, Virginia in 2018. Guns can also fall into the wrong hands. Research on shootings that took place in hospital emergency rooms found that in 23% of the cases, the weapon used was a gun the perpetrator took from a hospital security guard.

Students could also access firearms that are improperly stored or mishandled. Improper storage is a common problem among American gun owners. In a school setting, this has resulted in students finding a teacher's misplaced firearm, sometimes taking it or reporting it to another school official. News reports show that guns carried into schools have fallen out of teachers' clothing, and have been left in bathrooms and locker rooms. There have also been reports of students stealing guns from teachers.

Insurance companies also see concealed guns on school grounds as creating a heightened liability risk.

Other drawbacks to arming teachers involve the learning environment. In particular, owing to structural racism and discriminatory school security policies, Black high school students are less supportive than white students of arming teachers - 16% versus 26% - and report feeling less safe if teachers are carrying firearms.

3. What are the arguments for arming teachers?

Proponents emphasize that teachers, as Americans, have a right to use firearms to defend themselves against violent crime, including a school shooter. Our research shows that some people interpret their right to armed self-defense as a moral obligation, and argue that teachers have both a right and a responsibility to use firearms to protect themselves and their students.

Parents who regularly carry handguns to protect themselves and their children may take comfort knowing that their child's teacher could perform the role of protector at school.

In a school shooting, where lives can be saved or ended in a matter of seconds, some people may feel more secure believing a shooter would immediately meet armed resistance from a teacher without needing to wait for an armed school officer to respond.

4. Have any school districts allowed teachers to arm themselves?

Yes. Teachers may carry guns at school in districts in at least 19 states. The idea surfaced as a viable policy after the 1999 Columbine shooting, and gained momentum after the 2018 Parkland shooting.

The number of school districts that permit teachers to be armed is difficult to ascertain. Policies vary across states. New York bars school districts from allowing teachers to carry guns, while Missouri and Montana authorize teachers to carry firearms.

5. What were the results?

There are documented incidents of school staff using their firearm to neutralize a shooter. However, researchers have not found evidence that arming teachers increases school safety. Rather, arming teachers may contribute to a false sense of security for teachers, students and the community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arming teachers - an effective security measure or a false sense of security?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the wake of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, some elected officials are making calls anew forteachers to be armed and trained to use firearms to protect the nation's schools.

# data[].attributes.body
By providing more access to guns through educational institutions (ie. arming teachers), it is valid to argue that the percentage of gun violence in children and adolescents may increase further

# data[].attributes.body
If we start to train teachers to use firearms (that vast majority already disapprove), they are less likely to have the required trainings in content disciplines and therefore hinder the overall educational environment/learning of their students. Similarly, teachers who disapprove of being assigned to a teaching environment that has armed teachers, it is likely that there will be an even deeper/more prevalent teacher shortage.