Zavislak 1
Lindsay Zavislak
English 137H
Sarah Summers
11 April 2013
Fighting Fire with Fire?
A recent tragedy in a Connecticut elementary school has Americans looking for a better
way to protect its school-age children. The brutality that occurred in Sandy Hook elementary
school shook Americans to the core, making many people push for stricter gun laws. One
proposal that has become popular is to allow faculty and staff to have access to a gun in the
classroom. I do not believe this is the best option to protect innocent children because teachers
are not trained to deal with high-risk situations. Like all school officials, I believe that something
must be done to protect children in school. We cannot allow another tragedy like Columbine,
Virginia Tech, or Sandy Hook to occur. However, I do not think that arming teachers is the best
way to protect children because it brings more weapons and potential danger into the school.
Allowing professionals who are properly trained in high-risk situations to guard the schools
would be a safer option for protecting both children and faculty.
Guns are the most dangerous option for protecting children in school because, although
teachers would be trained to fire guns, they are not trained to deal with criminals in life-or-death
situations. For example, an intruder may use a child as a shield so that a teacher does not shoot
them. This creates a hostage situation that a teacher would not be trained to handle the way a
police officer is. The President of National School Safety and Security Services, Kenneth Trump,
agrees that training teachers to fire a gun does not qualify them to deal with other scenarios that
may transpire.
Zavislak 2
"Suggesting that by providing teachers, principals, custodians, or other school
staff with 8, 16, 40, or even 60 hours of firearms training on firing, handling, and
holstering a gun somehow makes a non-law enforcement officer suddenly
qualified to provide public safety services is an insult to our highly trained police
professionals and a high-risk to the safety of students, teachers, and other school
staff," Trump said.
Basically, Trump is saying that just because teachers are trained to fire a gun does not mean that
they are interchangeable with police officers. These trained officials go to school not just for
handling weapons but for dealing with high-risk situations. This kind of training cannot be
expected of school teachers whose responsibility is to educate. If Trump is right that teachers are
not equipped to handle high-risk situations like police officers are, as I think he is, then we need
to find a better option for protecting our students.
Along with faculty and staff not being properly trained, school personnel carrying guns
introduces more weapons into the situation which is exactly what our schools do not need right
now. While there is a weapon in reach, there is a chance of it being fired. Whether it be a
mentally ill teacher or a curious child, a weapon may fall into the wrong hands and more tragedy
is bound to occur. Because of privacy issues, schools have not spoken out about how they would
keep these weapons out of reach of children. School officials do not want to go on record giving
away personal safety information that may reach a potential intruder. However, officials at a
school in Texas, who have adopted some form of this bill, admit that the students do not know
which teachers are carrying a gun and that the weapons are concealed (McKinley n.p.). In an
article from The New York Times, Mr. Thweatt, who calls himself a ‘contingency planner’
believes that arming teachers will confuse a potential intruder whereas placing armed officers in
Zavislak 3
the school makes them an easy target. He explains, “The school board decided that teachers with
concealed guns were a better form of security than armed police officers, since an attacker would
not know whom to shoot first.” In other words, he believes that arming teachers is a safer option
than police officers because the intruder will not know which teacher has a weapon. Mr. Thweatt
claims that the weapons will be concealed and out of reach of the children. However, Mr.
Thweatt does not realize that these weapons will not stay concealed for long because these
teachers are trained in educating, not weaponry and security. Introducing more weapons to a
situation where the main focus is to keep weapons out is not only dangerous but also it creates a
hostile environment to learn in.
Although I do not see it as effective or safe, some states have already begun to adopt this
new law that allows school employees to carry guns. The fatal tragedy that occurred in
December 2012 at a Connecticut elementary school forced legislators to find a more efficient
way to protect children while at school. According to a New York Times article by John Eligon,
South Dakota became the first state to enact this new law that allows faculty and staff to have
access to firearms on March 8th. Scott Craig, a representative in the South Dakota House, argues
that, “People will see it’s reasonable, it’s safer than they think, it’s proactive and it’s preventive.”
In other words, Craig believes that allowing teachers to have guns is the best option for
protecting children in school. Because nearly every family owns a weapon in South Dakota, they
do not perceive guns the same way that other states may. Guns are used for recreational use and
children are taught to use them at a young age. Their reasoning for passing this bill is justified,
but it does not take away from the fact that teachers are not highly trained professionals in
weaponry. He thinks that other representatives will agree when they see how this plan is
executed in various states. Because Craig is representing a state that has already passed this
Zavislak 4
legislation, other states may see it as effective as he does. That would not be favorable for the US
as a whole because it puts more people in danger of being injured at school as a result of faculty
and staff having access to weapons.
Other states have adopted forms of this bill which modify the possession of guns in
school but ultimately does not keep children safe. Harrold, Texas is a small town where school
officials have toyed with the idea of allowing teachers to have guns. As previously mentioned,
Mr. Thweatt is the contingency planner who is representing this idea in an article by The New
York Times. He argues, “The county sheriff’s office is 17 miles away and the district cannot
afford to hire police officers, as urban schools in Dallas and Houston do.” Mr. Thweatt is
insisting that the school district in this small town has no other option than to arm teachers. In
small towns such as Harrold, Texas, school officials consider this bill to be the most logical.
Once again, I agree with their reasoning behind attempting the idea. However, these small-town
school officials do not realize that they may be making the situation worse by introducing more
weapons into the school environment.
The evidence I have provided shows that school officials did not take enough time to find
a comprehensive program that would keep both the staff and children as safe as possible. In an
article from The Huffington Post, the author writes about the bill that would allow teachers to
have access to weapons, “Opponents, which included state associations representing school
boards and teachers, said the bill was rushed, did not make schools safer and ignored other
approaches to safety.” (Eligon n.p.). In other words, by passing this bill only two months after it
was introduced, the Representatives do not show pensiveness. More thought and research must
be behind these kinds of complex situations. There is no easy fix for this issue the US has faced
for many years. Perhaps arming a select few staff members, such as the principal and the
Zavislak 5
secretaries, would have been beneficial in addition to have armed officers. With this
compromise, there would be no guns in the classrooms and teachers would not have the added
responsibility of teaching and protecting. However, states are beginning to see it as an all-ornothing deal. If they cannot afford security, they will make teachers their security. Had the
Representatives in states that support this bill spent more time reviewing other options, they
would see that arming teachers is not the safest option.
Because school officials did not take enough time to review all their options, they may
have overlooked possible funds from the government for assistance in making their schools
safer.
President Obama addresses the issue of law enforcement in his official plan on gun control that
was published after the Sandy Hook tragedy. The plan states that four billion dollars will be
spent to “help keep 15,000 cops on the street in cities and towns across the country” (N.A. 6).
This means that a startling four billion dollars will be spent to maintain our current situation.
When there are so many schools without proper protection, this should not be an option. Had
school officials spent more time researching, they may have appealed this use of money and
suggest that it be spent on providing low-budget schools with armed officers. If money is
preventing our children’s safety, then the government should step in to assist. By saying that lack
of funds inhibits the school’s ability to properly protect their children, school officials are putting
money before the safety of the students. The lack of preparation from leaders in the education
system shows an inability to keep themselves safe let alone the hundreds of children who attend
their school.
Another approach that has been introduced is placing armed officers in schools, which I
believe to be much safer than arming teachers. School Resource officers would be in each
Zavislak 6
school, taking the burden off of teachers whose main job should be to teach. SROs are essentially
police officers who are trained in high-risk situations and assigned to work in a school. This idea
was introduced by the National Rifle Association in their official plan for reforming gun control.
Asa Hutchinson, who previously worked for the NRA, agrees that SROs need to be implemented
in every school. He, along with other members of the NRA, have been studying schools who
have these SROs in place. Hutchinson argues, "an SRO in every school building is important.
Right now you have an SRO in every third building. I would say that is insufficient. Generally
there should be at least one in every school campus to reduce the response time." Essentially,
Hutchinson is arguing that even the schools with SROs already are not doing enough. He
believes there should be at least one in every single school, ensuring the safety of each school in
the area. This would decrease the time it would take for more officers to respond to an intrusion.
Clearly, the idea of having professionals with loaded weapons is more logical than arming the
faculty and staff.
The evidence from schools who have already done so shows that the introduction of
SROs would allow for a much safer environment than having armed teachers because they are
highly trained professionals. A teacher’s main job is to teach, not to be responsible for opening
fire when an intruder interrupts the safety of the school. With an SRO or two in place, the burden
of concealing and possibly having to fire a weapon is no longer upon the teacher. As I mentioned
before, teachers may be trained to use a gun but they do not have the ability to handle high-risk
situations. Anyone can learn to fire a gun but it takes much more time to learn how to do with a
mentally ill person who wishes to harm school students. SROs would undergo even more
training, approximately 40-60 hours, to handle situations that may arise in a school (Abad-Santos
n.p.). This means that they would be well-equipped to deal with intrusions and other risks of
Zavislak 7
safety. With highly trained officials guarding the halls, both students and faculty can feel safe.
There is no quick-fix to this issue, however, it seems that many schools are on the right path to
implementing the most effective plans by hiring SROs.
Time after time, the US has seen tragedy and did not take proper action. These new bills
and plans that are coming out to make schools safer are the product of outraged Americans who
do not want to see any more students harmed. One popular legislation that has been introduced
involves allowing teachers to have access to guns during school hours. There are much safer
options, but many states that do not believe they can afford them. Although some schools do not
see it as logical, the funds must be spent in order to ensure that the most effective safety plans are
implemented. For the future, schools across America need to find the plan that works best for
them. A school’s geographic location may affect how they need to protect their students, such as
rural areas versus urban cities. Either way, action must be taken to ensure that another tragedy
such as the kind that occurred in Sandy Hook Elementary never happens again. I foresee SROs
becoming an integral part of the school environment in the future. Although more states in the
south, particularly North Dakota and Texas, may begin to favor allowing teachers to hold
weapons, I hope they will at least consider that it is not the best option.
Zavislak 8
Works Cited
Abad-Santos, Alexander. "The NRA's New Plan for Even More Guns in Schools Doesn't Add
Up." The Atlantic Wire. The Atlantic Monthly Group, 2 Apr. 2013. Web. 9 Apr. 2013.
Eligon, John. "A State Backs Guns in Class For Teachers." The New York Times. The New York
Times Company, 09 Mar. 2013. Web. 9 Apr. 2013.
McKinley, James C. Mckinley, Jr. "In Texas School, Some Teachers Carry Books, Chalk and
Pistols." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 29 Aug. 2008. Web. 10
Apr. 2013.
Swanson, Emily. "Gun Poll Finds Division Over Arming Teachers And Other School Officials."
The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 04 Apr. 2013. Web. 9 Apr. 2013.
"Arming Teachers and School Staff with Guns." School Security. National School Safety and
Security Services, n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2013.
"Now Is the Time." The White House. 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.