These Twelve Teachers Terrify Me

Me, I don’t think more guns in school are a good idea. But if we were to go ahead with such a plan, we have to find a better way to figure out who our gun-toters will be. A recent Gallup poll offers a frightening scenario.

The poll finds that teachers overall don’t want guns. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of polled teachers oppose the idea. A significant majority (58%) think it will make schools less on teachers with guns

The scary result is different. Some teachers (18%) said they’d be willing to carry guns at work. Of those, two-thirds told pollsters they were “very confident” that “with special training [they] could handle a gun effectively in a live shooting situation at [their] school.”gallup on teachers with guns 2

Am I crazy? Or are these twelve-out-of-a-hundred teachers who think they know just what to do with a deadly weapon the LAST people who should be packing heat in school? Have we forgotten the lessons of Farva?

Leave a comment


  1. Agellius

     /  March 18, 2018

    It just occurred to me: When it comes to plans for preventing STDs, liberals call conservatives hopelessly optimistic for believing that abstinence is the best prevention. We need to face the fact (they say) that sex is going to happen, no matter how much we forbid it, so the best we can do is be prepared when it happens. Yet aren’t “gun-free zones” basically abstinence applied to firearms? Do they really think gun violence won’t happen just because we forbid it?

    • An intriguing parallel, but it runs out of steam pretty fast, IMHO. Students often want to have sex and and enlightened public policy should want them to be safe whether or not they have sex. Some people for religious or public-health reasons might want to discourage them from having sex at all. We can and should debate and negotiate the proper limits and boundaries of public policy in that case, but it can’t be merely to reflect one particular religious viewpoint. But nobody wants to get shot at school. There’s no way to help the people who want to get shot to get shot safely. The better sex-ed analogy–or, I should say, the one that reflects my feelings about guns in schools–helps show the utter absurdity of adding guns to school to fight gun violence. It would go something like this: If students are going to have sex anyway, let’s connect them to teachers so that the teachers can have sex with them. That way the students will be protected from unsafe sex with their fellow students. When you hear it spelled out like that, I think it shows the way I feel about adding guns to school. Utterly horrible. In short, sex ed doesn’t ADD sex to students’ lives. Arming teachers does add guns to school grounds.

      • Agellius

         /  March 18, 2018

        Possibly you take my analogy to such absurd lengths because you don’t see both premarital sex and gun violence as both being evil. For conservatives, both are things that we want to prevent, and neither can be done “safely”, that is, without harm.

        Let me try re-stating my parallel:

        A liberal might say that, granting that premarital sex isn’t ideal, at least we can minimize the harm that comes from it by teaching and equipping kids to do it in ways that don’t result in disease and pregnancy. A conservative would say, given that gun violence is bad, at least let’s minimize the harm that comes from it by teaching and equipping teachers to stop or at least shorten the duration of a shooting incident (and possibly even deter it in the first place).

        The liberal would say that expecting kids to abstain from sex just because you tell them to is a pipe dream; and the conservative would say that expecting gunmen to stay away from schools just because you forbid guns there is also a pipe dream.

        Obviously, arming teachers adds guns to school grounds. But you say that as though guns per se are the problem. I would say the problem is not guns per se but guns in the hands of people who mean to do harm. Guns in the hands of people who mean to do good are a countermeasure to the former. I don’t see any valid reason to equate them, as if a gun in the hand of one is as bad as a gun in the hand of the other. If fewer guns is always better, then why not disarm our policemen? After all that would result in fewer guns on the street.

  2. Welcome to the hell of an irreversible cascading system failure. This is a fantastic policy for the gun cult and anti-public school interest, which tend to overlap. No sane, educated family with sufficient means to make a choice will send their kids to a schools that increasingly resemble prisons, now with armed guards.

    I used to do happy hours sometimes with pre-2008 with childless yuppies who worked for or admired the remains of the prior new urbanist administration in the city planning office. (This was in a rust belt city of your acquaintance that still has third world community indicators in its black ghetto neighborhoods.) These were corporate democrats who thought they would save the city and the world by renewing the rich white enclaves downtown while ignoring the neighborhoods. They were the engineers of structural racism, or at least they didn’t do anything against it but deny it existed.

    Probably to help with that denial, they all pledged undying loyalty to the failing public school system, without having any skin in the game of course. They’d flip out when I told them there were hardly any acceptable junior high to high school options by lower middle class standards, and their ideological closure to all alternatives (which my kids were not using, by the way) would look very different if they had kids. Everyone knew this was true — having children usually means going to the suburbs and/or a private school. I had a cop neighbor who sent his kids to MUHS and regarded MPS (and city transit) as hellscapes where you’d be lucky to survive. His entire family was a product of the old white ethnic catholic communities that felt they had built a city destroyed by (in reality their response to) desegregation. He was counting the days to his retirement and then lit out for the country. If you followed what the PD was doing during the day at schools orow if you had access to intra-teacher communications, you knew that gun threats and lockdowns were a daily occurrence.

    Separated by maybe as little as ten blocks from the functional equivalent of a third world failed state, the affluent lived and still live their lives in denial and ignorance — a very normal American situation. Their kids did not go to crazy, crappy schools and they still don’t. It will be very interesting to see how many white majority affluent or suburban public and private schools arm up now. It is a choice that probably gets made based on the level of cohesion and trust in the community. No one imagines their kids or their kids’ friends will become school shooters. It’s a fear projected on others, and it is a substantially white fear. Imagine how much crazier the reactions would be today if school shooters were not overwhelmingly white males.

    Agellius continues to do a good job of showing where reason and your liberal opinions will get you with religious reactionaries. I never could make up my mind which was worse — the religious reactionaries who really do want to destroy the country, or the out of touch white liberals who fundamentally do not understand what culture and power are, or how they work, or fail to work. Fortunately my kids will be out of school before Canadian social democracy fails, in the worst case scenario. I could be wrong. I am a cultural pessimist, but culture keeps proving it is far, far worse than I realized.

  1. My Heroes Have Always Been Teachers | I Love You but You're Going to Hell

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: