http://www.duluthnewstribune.c...arming-teachers-guns


You won't find much support for arming teachers among Northland educators and school leaders.

"As a parent of three kids, I would be terrified to send my kids to school where teachers are armed," said Jim Carlson, an art teacher with Duluth's Congdon Park Elementary School. "The whole idea ... is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard."

Local educators reacted to last week's news that President Donald Trump has suggested arming teachers in the wake of the Feb. 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., where 17 people — mostly students — were killed. Trump later said it should apply to "gun-adept" teachers, and the decision should be up to states.

The state teachers union Education Minnesota last week said it was more important to meet the mental health needs of students, reduce access to "weapons of mass murder" and build secure schools.

"Educators know arming all the teachers is a terrible idea," said Denise Specht, union president. "Schools aren't secure. Kindergartners get into everything because they are curious. High school students can often overpower their teachers. Finally, we don't want law enforcement officers on the scene of a real, chaotic incident to accidentally shoot an armed teacher." (Really? )

Myers-Wilkins Elementary teacher Jim Olson said he grew up hunting in the Northland, but he would never feel comfortable carrying a gun in school.

"We're not trained professionals for that," he said, and to become adept in the ways of handling something like a school shooting falls within another career category entirely.

There are multiple problems with arming teachers, Olson said, citing lockdown protocol as one. School lockdowns for active shooter situations typically involve turning off the lights and corralling kids into a corner of the room, with a teacher working to keep them quiet and calm. Who protects that class if its teacher leaves to find a shooter, Olson asked. (This is the best you could come up with?)

A child seeing a teacher shoot a gun could add a layer of trauma to an already-traumatic situation, said Duluth Federation of Teachers president Bernie Burnham.

"Do you really want to have kindergarteners watch their teacher, who they trust and love, pull out a weapon and shoot somebody?" she asked. "That sounds horrific to me."(Yeah, better they get slaughtered in the next school massacre.)

Laura MacArthur Elementary third-grade teacher Emily Glomski said one job of a teacher is to create a safe school culture by promoting kindness and inclusivity. Arming teachers sends the wrong message, she said.

"We need more school counselors, psychologists and mental health practitioners," she said, for those who need more support, "to prevent them from becoming someone who feels their only chance to eradicate their pain and sadness is by shooting teachers and other students."

Hermantown superintendent Kerry Juntunen said he opposes arming teachers, and so does his district's school resource officer.

"You have to be trained to make a decision and be willing to take someone else's life," Juntunen said, and teachers shouldn't be tasked with that.(Yep; better someone take your life and the life of your students.)

He, too, said it's more important for educators and school staff to find and work with "kids who are hurting."

Proctor superintendent John Engelking agreed.

"We don't need guns in our schools," he said. "Teachers are here to teach."

Schools should instead rely on trained professionals in dangerous situations,(How did that work out in Parkland?) and do other things that make sense to each local community to increase safety — things that don't turn a school into "an armed camp," said Ronald Stephens, executive director of the National School Safety Center in Los Angeles.

"One of the biggest things schools can do is to up their game on threat assessment protocols and rumor control," Stephens said, "and getting to know the students, letting them know why it's in their self-interest to report those things — rather than adding another layer of target-hardening."

Duluth East High School social studies teacher Catherine Nachbar said proposals like arming teachers hurt educator recruitment efforts and perpetuate "a culture of fear," at a time when it's tough to get qualified people interested in teaching.

The first major school shooting — which happened in 1999 at Columbine High School in Colorado — was during Nachbar's second year of teaching. School violence and shootings weren't part of her teacher education in college, she said, but they've been happening during most of her career.

"It's a greater social issue," she said, "and placing guns in the hands of teachers is not going to fix it.

Sigh...what happened to IDS 709?

You've changed quite a bit since the days I attended you.

None of the nonsense spewing forth from those hand-wringing crybabies is rooted in facts, only emotions. None of their concerns WRT armed teachers has come to pass in Utah, where many teachers are armed. My son-in-law's brother carries in class everyday.

BTW, what Trump is proposing is already the law. If a state wants to arm its teachers, it can. There needn't be any further legislation at the Federal level to make it so. I think the suggestion by Trump is a clever ploy to set the gun banner's hair on fire. He's trolling them, and I love it.

These people are really silly.

I wonder how shocked they would be to learn that we've been doing this in Utah for many years now. Pretty "ludicrous" huh.

It never ceases to amaze me at how incompetent and stupid people assume everyone is in these discussions

- We can't arm teachers, the police might shoot them thinking they're the suspect

- We can't arm teachers, they might accidentally shoot a student

- We can't arm teachers, they might get mad at a student and just shoot them

- We can't arm teachers, a kid might just take their gun and shoot everyone

#forshitsake

Need to add...

-Instruct the teachers on proper grave digging technique, so they may be efficient, effective and economical in their task.

#sillyfuckingleftestarguments

Honestly, there are some teachers I wouldn't trust with chalk, so arming ALL OF THEM is out of the question. In this position, I wouldn't want to FORCE someone to carry a gun. ESPECALLY some liberal snowflake crybaby...

However, if we're talking about "It's for the children"... well, then let it be FOR THE CHILDREN.

(To kinda parrot what Colin Noir said

A bank, pretty well protected with armed guards, security systems, bullet proof glass... to protect money

Nuclear plants, pretty much the same, add fences... to protect nuclear stuff

Military bases, more fences, more people with guns (depending on the base), more security systems... to protect things the Military have.

Jewelry Stores...

Schools... [Chirp chirp chirp] to protect our kids.

And there's more than enough ways that it can be done so it doesn't look like the kids are going into an outpost in Iraq. Guards don't (shouldn't) have to wear military style uniforms, sniper / machinegun towers. Khaki pants & polo shirts with a vest & gun underneath. There's more than enough stuff out there that can conceal an SBR and also have it quickly accessible. There's more than enough ways to have metal detectors and an a vestibule where someone coming into the school can be contained.

Hell, I'd go so far as to say "Give the parents a choice!"
School "A" over here is the "Special Snowflake & Unicorn-fart Academy for the Everyone is Inclusive", and they hand out lollypops and flowers. All of our students feel really good about themselves. "Hug time" is from 9ish to 10ish in the morning. They do a pretty good job of teaching the snowflakes what to think.

School "B" over there is "(Enter the Name of your Town) Central". Those big guys over there in the suit coats aren't the football or wrestling coaches, they are the guards, also trained in first aid. There's metal detectors at all entry points, and a central security control room over there. We give out a big trophy to the winner, a slightly smaller trophy to the 2nd place, and an even smaller trophy for 3rd, a "try harder" for everyone else. We have Spanish, as well as other languages as an elective, and we say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning in homeroom. They do their damnedest to teach the young Men and Women in there HOW to think.


I know where I'm sending my two drunken midgets!

For some reason, the left seems to think being responsible for ones own safety is tantamount to treason. That everyone’s safety should be the responsibility of the state, not individual. It somehow makes them feel better when they think their big brother is always taking care of them. Just so they don’t have to be responsible, and focus on the important things, like free healthcare, new iPhones, and handouts.

Well, how’s the saying go: when seconds count the police are only minutes away. And in the case of Florida, what good did having the only citizens legally able to carry, parked outside “waiting for backup?”

I bet it drives them crazy to think their narrative of putting their faith in law enforcement to take care of them (when they’re not chastising them as racists, of course), just to have extremely public anectodotal evidence of regular guys not going above and beyond.

Just your typical leftist trick of changing the argument to suit their counterargument. No one wants to force any teachers to carry a gun; certainly not openly or in such a manner that everyone would know they were carrying.

The concept of allowing people the right of self-defense is so foreign to the left that they cannot fathom the concept of simply allowing teachers who wish to be able to carry to do so.

Wait, wait, did anyone tell them that if no one is armed they work and tend to hundreds of children in a GUN FREE ZONE? Do they know that nobody ever attempts a massacre in an 'armed camp' it's always in a GUN FREE ZONE? Somebody needs to tell them, and do they know that when a person you love gets killed he remains dead forever, it's not the same as getting ones feelings hurt. Did anybody tell them that? Did they?

I guess I smile here. Maybe those with great angst re arming teachers lack faith in their own judgement/skill with a firearm, they know they themselves are fu-fu-heads, therefore they lack faith in others, who they assume are also fu-fu-heads.

I have a friend who works for a public college, has a CCW. One day he had a discussion with a coworker re CCW on campus, the coworker was of this Duluth mindset. My friend took exception to the coworkers position, who responded something like "what are you going to do, go out to your car and get a gun?". My friend replied "I don't have to go to my car".

We protect every Government build many banks and all airports most jewelry stores. They protect things of value. Your kids are NOT valuable, apparently.

I could trust only a very small percentage of teachers to be armed. I spent 46 years in local gov't knowing many teachers. Plus I have been heavily involved in my local club open to the public. Many many people just do not think right to be armed like that.

Predictable. We all know the education system is made up of mostly left thinking people. I would not have expected any other type of reaction from them to this idea. If you took a sampling of 1000 teachers across the country probably 900 of them would give you responses similar to the ones in the article.

I do know that at one time the Duluth police would park a squad out front of the schools all day. Whether there was a officer on campus no one knew for sure but the squad was always parked out front. Don't know if they still do this or not.

quote:

"Do you really want to have kindergarteners watch their teacher, who they trust and love, pull out a weapon and shoot somebody?" she asked. "That sounds horrific to me."

Umm, yes. Is this guy smoking crack? Trauma of seeing teacher shoot bad guy vs trauma of dying? Hmm, which is worse?

I'm bringing that teacher a giant red apple every day and sending him/her on an all expenses paid vacation.

Why do so many capitulate on the most basic ideas of self-preservation and self-defense and somehow believe they are entitled to have others risk to defend them when they are unwilling to even consider defending themselves?

I can’t even grasp the idea of expecting someone to go in harms way for me. More than happy to have someone come along with me should the time come to defend against attack. If I won’t fight for myself why should someone else, especially a stranger?

We truly have become a society of sheep, or is it lemmings?

Equally illogical editorial from the local rag in Davenport IA. Note he throws in the "I too have a CCW permit" line, thus making him an expert.

This same paper ended their comment feature last year, claiming "hateful words." I suspect most of the comments pointed out how out of touch the editorial page was.

http://qctimes.com/opinion/col...94-4bb83aa5e69f.html

Alexander: Who pays for arming teachers?

Jon Alexander Editorial Page Editor 2 hrs ago

Arming teachers would ultimately fall on the backs of taxpayers. And, the idea becomes an even bigger farce in a state such as Iowa, where the Legislature considers a paltry 1 percent increase in school funding a big win.

Now, look, I don't think President Donald Trump is serious about creating a new paramilitary force manned by chemistry teachers and administrative assistants. It's just another dodge, a way for a president under pressure to discuss gun violence and school shootings without, you know, blaming the very tools designed explicitly to inflict maximum damage.

But thanks to Trump's not-so-bold leadership after the Parkland, Florida, shooting, the conservatives that now run the country are throwing around two ideas — both centering on more guns in schools, not less.

One would essentially transform schools into quasi-prisons, a hugely expensive endeavor. Armed guards. Security checks. Metal detectors. And no one should be shocked by how that would play out, as, 99.999 percent of the time, these security forces would have little to do but harass, detain and probably arrest students for minor infractions.

The other is, of course, shaping your friendly band instructor into some kind of action movie hero equipped to gun down a better-armed shooter without concern for her own life — who just also happens to be an expert on Chopin.

It's an absurd idea, and a costly one, too.

Almost 35,000 full-time teachers were employed in Iowa in school year 2016-17, says the state Department of Education. Now, Trump doesn't think every teacher should pack heat. In his standard way, he's haphazardly throwing around numbers, though. And they provide a basis for a little napkin analysis.

Let's say Iowa sets a goal of training up and arming 20 percent of its teachers, a number Trump has recently used. That's 6,962 people, not counting support staff. A standard Iowa Conceal and Carry class costs $125 if weapon training is included. It runs about $60 for the four-hour class without shooting. That works out to just shy of $900,000 to send 20 percent of teachers to a full CCW class.

But is a basic CCW enough? I mean, the goal here is to transform teachers into something out of Die Hard. I have CCWs from New York and Idaho and have attended those classes. Trust me, Hans Gruber's henchman would have me cornered before I could say "yippie ki-yay."

So, clearly, something more robust than the bare minimum would be necessary. Advanced weapons classes can run $1,000 or more. Suddenly, just the training component spikes to north of $9 million in a state that's loath to fund basic educational programs.

Teachers would need a firearm, too. A Glock 23 runs about $550. Let's say Glock gives schools a $100 discount. That's another $3.1 million hit to state and local taxpayers.

Just in Iowa, this nonsensical endeavor would carry a $12 million price tag on its face.

Add in incidentals and that price is bound to jump considerably. Long ago, insurance industry actuaries determined that the presence of guns increases risk of a shooting, regardless of what the gun lobby says. Corporate America isn't acting out of social responsibility when it bans guns from places of business. It's all dollars and cents. And in schools, spiking insurance costs would continually divert district resources away from legitimate educational programs.

Arming teachers is a bad idea. It would result in students getting shot for acting up. It would lead to accidental shootings. It would sap money from already cash-strapped districts struggling to maintain art and music departments. And there's no scientific evidence that it would act as a deterrent for would-be mass shooters.

But it would sell more guns. And that, after all, is the entire point.


Jon Alexander is editorial page editor at the Quad-City Times. He can be reached at jalexander@qctimes.com

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:


Alexander: Who pays for arming teachers?

Arming teachers would ultimately fall on the backs of taxpayers.

Gonna stop you right there, chief. Want to take a stab at how much it costs the taxpayers in Utah to have armed teachers? Zero. That's right, genius. Nothing.

Ignoramus.

Am I the only wondering "If I can't trust an adult with a firearm, why should I trust them with children or automobiles?"

Interestingly enough we heard similar remarks about streets running with blood when the issuance of CCWs was being expanded. Yet, that wasn't the case and violent crime was in a decline until 2016.