Affirmative Argument #4 Win! For Us Opposed to Arming Teachers

Yes! Finally we, the group opposed to arming teachers with guns win justification for siding to not arm teachers for once. The argument I want to clearly state and backup is that when you allow a teacher to carry a gun, they make mistakes and can threaten the lives of innocent children.  So therefore guns need not to be carried by teachers. In the article In Utah, Teachers Can Carry Guns Into School and Not Tell Anyone, written by Zoe Schlanger the premise is about how persons in Utah that have a concealed-carry permit are allowed to carry a firearm in school without approval by school authority.

Now, one might ask themselves: What happens if this concealed gun goes off unannounced? Well, there was a case in which that occurred. “An elementary school teacher with a concealed-carry permit accidentally shot herself in the leg in the Utah school’s bathroom Thursday morning,” The Salt Lake Tribune reported. The most asinine thing about this policy is that “parents, by law, are not allowed to ask their child’s teacher if he or she is carrying a gun in the classroom.” (Schlanger, 2014). This is a terrifying game of Russian roulette as I see it, because you may have a mentally unstable teacher with the capabilities to just off a student. While the entire community and its constituents are completely anonymous that said teacher is indeed  packing heat. This policy is risky and needs to be changed, at least in telling someone your armed. “82 percent of respondents thought parents should have the right to know if their child’s teacher is packing heat.” (Schlannger, 2014). If I were a parent in Utah I’d move knowing that I had no idea if the teacher that just bought a gun without training is sitting 5 feet from him/her. In closing I feel my argument to not arm teachers with guns is more justifiable given the example I provided

Mr. Gohmert, this is not a movie

One of the main proponents behind the initiative of getting guns in our schools is Mr Louie Gohmert, the Republican U.S. Representative from Texas’s First Congressional District. Mr. Gohmert believes that the answer to gun violence is more guns, as this would be one of those Steven Seagal movies.

Rep.Louie GohmertThe Representative expressed in an interview on Fox News that if the Sandy Hook principal “had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands and takes him out and takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids.” His anger towards the tragic incident is understandable and shared by many and the what if scenarios are played on everyones mind as well, but we can not think for a second that more guns is the solution to this problem.

The Texas lawmaker believes that educators should be able to carry guns but this idea is quite ludicrous if we consider that even the people whose job is to serve and protect, the ones that went through gun training and are supposed to be the experts can’t (in some cases) distinguish the good guys from the bad guys or real guns from toys.

The only thing that we can agree on that came form Gohmert’s interview is the premise that it is time for an open minded conversation about guns. This conversation most definitely should be open minded but I think that being open minded doesn’t necessarily means that we should have Steven Seagal training posses to “protect” our schools, open minded should be taken in the sense that we need to find solutions to this problem leaving behind any bias . It is true that the Texas Representative didn’t explicitly said that Mr. Seagal should train a bunch of gun enthusiast  but the point is that lawmakers should be the ones that come with reasonable and realistic ideas and create laws based on those ideas in order to have a functioning society. GunFreeZoneAP

Bottomline, we have to emphasize that guns should not be handle by educators because their mission is not to kill people. Their  mission is to teach our kids, between many other things,  to use or words to solve conflicts instead of using violence. Teachers and school principals are the ones responsible of our children’s education so our society can have a better future were gun violence exists only on screen and not in our classrooms.

Good Guys, Bad Guys, and The Guns

Good Guys, Bad Guys, and The Guns

One of the main positions the gun advocates take when there is a debate about guns is that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” In theory, this may sound as a valid statement but,  as with everything, it should be use in an specific context and along with facts to back it up.Wayne  LaPierre

Lets take for example the Sandy Hook shooting that took place in Connecticut where 20 children were murdered. A few days after the tragic event, as it was expected, this catchphrase was present in the public appearance of the Executive Vice President of the National Riffle Association that addressed the incident. In his speech, Mr Wayne LaPierre reacts to the incident blaming video games, films, and music for this kind of violence explaining that these industries “sells and stows violence against its own people.” It is true that nowadays violence can be found in movies, music, and video games but this is not what is killing people, guns is what is killing people. And the idea that those industries are selling and stowing violence against its own people… well, lets ask NRA members and pro gun advocates Chuck Norris and Clint Eastwood what do they think about it.

Another interesting point made by Mr. LaPierre is the one about how society cherishes more banks, celebrities, and stadiums than our kids. His point is that there are armed guards protecting the previous ones and that we have ignored the security of our kids, even to the point of banning guns in schools. Lets break this down. Yes, there are armed guards in banks because money is storage in banks and thieves, since humans came up with the concept of money and decided to keep it in these institutions, have always tried break into the banks and steal it. This is not the case of schools and children. Yes, also there are some celebrities and sports stadiums that are protected by armed guards but those cases have their own reason such as being continuos threatened and being terrorist targets. The point is that you can not compare them as equal. It is true that sadly the Sandy Hook tragedy is not the first one but the argument should not be focus on why there are not armed guards in schools but why do we have high capacity machine guns on the streets and why people can access them so easily.

Mr. LaPierre believes that having guns in schools will reduce or even completely avoid tragedies such as the Sandy Hook shooting to happen again because at “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Well, who can determine who is the good guy and who is the bad guy? What if the “good guys” can not do their job as it is the case of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives because people and organizations such as the NRA are stopping them to do so? Can good guys be trusted to keep the weapons in a safe place to avoid accidents or, worst, that the weapon ends up in the hands of bad guys?

As we can see, catchy phrases can sound valid but we need to understand the context and the facts to consider them as that, as valid. The one about “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” is a valid one, if we use it in the context of a cheesy movie or a video game, so it is the case of  “don’t fight fire with fire”

Affirmative Argument #1: An Armed Teacher Calls for a Safer Classroom

There are many reasons why some may think arming a teacher in a school setting will provide more protection toward themselves and their students. The fact of the matter is that if a teacher were to be armed, would they know how to shoot a weapon in a critical situation? Last time I checked, I never heard of teachers practicing firearm techniques. The experience, accuracy,  and psychology of shooting a gun at a target takes time to foster. I’m arguing against the fact that arming a teacher is safer. Lets understand the increased dangers this present to the students and teachers. Firstly, what if the teacher lost the key to the guns vault in a situation, or if a curious and determined student got a hold of it. Then we’d possibly have a child thinking the gun is a toy and an unintentional disaster can present itself. Second, what if the teacher has no prior shooting experience? Then you have the opportunity for said teacher to hurt themselves or a student in the defending process against an armed intruder. Guns aren’t easy to shoot at targets, especially when your caught off guard in a situation your not prepared to face, which most teachers are subjected to in these crisis situations. The policy of allowing teachers the permission to hold guns in a school setting in my opinion is unnecessary. We have police and security personable that are trained for situations like a school shooting. Its very easy to say, oh having a gun in the class is safer, but are you as a teacher prepared enough, skilled enough to operate a weapon in a situation quickly and appropriately to mitigate a disaster? Guns need to stay at home or on trained personnel in my opinion, not with educators.