On 21 February 2018, President Donald Trump hosted a “listening session” at the White House with survivors and family members of school shootings. This was in response to the Parkland, Florida school shooting last week. During the gathering the President suggested that arming teachers could be one solution to stopping a tragedy. The President said that the average attack lasts about three minutes and that first responders are generally on scene in five to eight minutes. He ended by saying that armed teachers could end the attack quickly.
The President’s proposal is a bad idea and the reason for that is one that should appeal to most Americans. Arming teachers is a plan that contains the most financial risk to the taxpayer. Understanding that according to the Department of Education, there are 14,000 public school districts in the country employing 3.2 million full time teachers, the following questions should be answered before this proposal sees the light of day.
– Who buys the weapons and pays for firearms training for 3.2 million teachers? The average price for a Remington R51 9mm pistol is $375. The cost to buy this pistol for 3.2 million teachers is $1.2 billion.
– Who maintains/ cleans / repairs the weapons and pays for the ammunition? How often do teachers have to recertify on their assigned weapon? (FYI, Marines must “qualify” with their weapon annually. Would teachers do less? More?)
– Do the teachers take the weapons home with them each night or are they locked in the teacher’s desk or in an armory in the school? How are the weapons stored when school is not in session; re: during the summer or on holidays?
– If a teacher’s religion objects to handling weapons or taking a life, must the teacher be fired? Is handling a weapon now a condition of employment or can a fired teacher sue the district for religious discrimination if he/she finds handling a weapon religiously objectionable?
– If the armed teacher fails to shoot the shooter before a student is shot or killed, can the teacher be sued for malpractice (assuming weapons proficiency is a condition of employment) or is the District culpable for the teacher’s failure to act?
– If the teacher already has a personal weapon, will the school district assume responsibility if the teacher discharges it at school? What about if they discharge it home?
Each one of the questions above poses a financial risk for each taxpayer in a school district. Keep in mind that the American military consists of only 2.1 million people in uniform (compared to 3.2 million teachers) with a budget of $597 billion which pays for people and weapons. Are we prepared to weaponize our educational system the same way we weaponize our defense system? Are we really prepared to pay for it?
Or can we agree that assault weapons can be regulated the way they were prior to 2004. No one wants to make the hard choices so it’s easier to pick a “sound bite” and point to it as a solution when it will create more problems than it will solve. Let’s treat the disease rather than just treat the symptom. It’s a tough subject and will require hard answers, but arming 3.2 million teachers at taxpayers expense isn’t one of them.
