I don’t understand arming teachers in order to protect schools from crazy gunmen.
Do these people have ANY idea of the psychological cost in pointing a gun at a living human being and pulling that trigger?
A decent person will find it hard to do so, especially if the target is relatively young and someone they know. Meanwhile people not so right in the head or just simply bloodthirsty will have no compunction in drilling even a newborn with holes.
You need conditioning to be able to use a gun effectively, with the intent that it was designed for (which is, after all, TO KILL PEOPLE). Do you honestly think that a teacher will be able to effectively use a gun when faced by someone who has both the training and desire to use one? How can you even compare the mental makeup of a person whose lifelong ambition is to help children to someone determined to kill even defenseless kids?
And a pistol versus assault weapons? Seriously? I know that’s possible but only if the pistoleer knows how to make use of his or her weapon’s strengths, minimize the advantages of assault weapons and/or shotguns, and make effective use of the terrain. But that takes training. Are we going to include “basic tactics” in Educ 101 now? Time spent on the shooting range just won’t cut it when you’re in a real shooting situation.
And please remember that in most cases the perpetrators of these horrible murders were wearing body armor, probably in expectation of confrontation with police and on-site security. That body armor is most likely capable of protecting them against the kind of standard ammunition teachers can buy off a gun store. Unless Departments of Education will issue them special, armor-piercing rounds?
Do the advocates of this move see how… strange this can be?
I think there are many effective ways to prevent another Newtown from happening. But, in my opinion, arming teachers isn’t one of them.
Edit [19 Dec. 2012, 11:53 p.m., Manila Time]
Slate has this nice article on some of my thoughts above. You might want to check it.