The idea that a small % of educators would have both the aptitude and desire to function well in such a role has merit....
I'd agree with this because that small % will educate themselfs how to react in a life treating situation,they will become proficant with a firearm...IMO. But unfortunately i think that would be a small % of teachers.
I've been offline since 12/22 and only have few minutes to read and comment on this thread, but was asked to do so by a member, so, here we go.
First thing... as you say, Gravestone, the number of teachers who will seek training and meet proficiency standards will be small % of all teachers. This is NOT an argument against doing it, however. When you look at John Lott's
More Guns Less Crime you see that only 2-3% of the citizens in any Shall-Issue CCW state elect to do so... but Lott's data show that the effect on crime is significant as criminals are aware that
anyone they select as a victim may be a CCW holder.
It's probable that the % of teachers who elect to carry concealed firearms at school would be roughly equivalent to the % we see in the general population. But if school boards tack on higher requirements for them to do this, the number will go down.
It doesn't take a post-doc in math to figure that since most schools have fewer than 100 teachers (rough averages: elementary schools have 20-30, high schools 50-60, last time I looked) this means that if only 1-2 teachers out of every 100 would voluntarily carry guns, this means that only 1 out of 5 elementary schools would have an armed teacher, and only 1 out of every 2 or 3 high schools would have one. This is clearly insufficient. So while it seems to me to be a good idea to allow teachers to carry guns if they choose to meet the proficiency standards, it's not going to be sufficient.
The second option discussed here has been to put armed security guards in every school. This is a
really good idea, perhaps the best idea. The problem is that it's gonna be
really expensive. So we have to decide who's going to pay for it... will it be the already cash-strapped school boards? Or the cash-strapped police departments? Or some other entity? Whoever it is, guess who's gonna be taking it in the shorts? That's right, us taxpayers. But as Wayne LaPierre pointed out, as a society we put armed guards in our money/banks, our jewellery stores, our stock exchanges, etc, etc, etc, all the things we consider valuable. EXCEPT our children! What lunacy THAT is! So if we truly consider our children the most valuable resource we have in America, we shouldn't balk at paying the money needed for armed security guards.
The third option is to garner community support in the form of volunteerism. I am confident that in almost every rural American community, most suburban communities, and even in many urban communities, there is a small but dedicated cadre of private citizens who are proficient with firearms, possessed of high moral fiber and good character, who would be willing to give their time to serve as "monitors", or some such title, in their local schools. Active and retired cops and firefighters, former military personnel, concerned citizens with advanced firearms training, and so on.
The solution should be some combination of the above 3 choices, in my opinion. What combination of armed teachers, paid security, and armed volunteers is utilized within each school district should be that school district's choice. But federal legislation such as the GFSA needs to be dropped, and further federal legislation is unnecessary... just let the local communities how they want to provide armed security for their kids.
It might be of some value for the feds to pass a law requiring school districts to provide armed security on all school campuses and on all school activities, and open up the courts so that schools that fail to do so adequately are subject to tort remedies. But other than that, I don't think the feds should do a gawddamn thing.
