When gun owners contend public school teachers should be armed, they do so because it fits their ideology. Succinctly put, many (perhaps most) firearm owners believe that firearms, if held by law-abiding citizens, make everyone safer. Many educators recoil at the prospect of arming teachers for the opposite reason: they are ambivalent (or antagonistic) to firearms. This shouldn’t be surprising.
Most educators are compassionate individuals who are personally invested in providing an inclusive, peaceful, learning environment. Therefore many teaching professionals find the concept of brute force alien to their values. However, if this is so, it is sophism for these individuals to argue that student safety is the sole reason for their opposition to armed teachers.
Educators who are uncomfortable with the prospect of a fellow teacher carrying a firearm should simply admit it. But if they did, many anti-gun teachers would be forced to engage pro-gun advocates on equal footing. Both sides of the debate would find it necessary to show how their particular position enhanced the safety of students.
Advocates for armed teachers would struggle to justify arming every teacher who holds a conceal carry permit. Likewise, anti-arming forces would find it difficult to explain how an armed teacher with advanced security training would lessen student safety.
Let’s be honest, a few armed, trained, teachers in each school would increase student safety without making either end of the ideological spectrum happy. Unfortunately, over-the-top gun advocates will play a political game with phobic teachers, unions, and their political lackeys. Dubious ideas will be pitted against an insecure school system. Perhaps this generation could learn from their grandparents: get under the desk and hope for the best.