Should Teachers Really Have Guns?

Image from source, ThinkProgress

It's so automatic now, that it's become a morbid joke: if there is a mass shooting--regardless of the circumstances--argument will be made that if only the victims/bystanders were armed, the shooter would have been stopped. The answer to gun violence is allegedly more guns, which seems like the old cold war "mutually assured destruction" to me, but what do I know?

So, it's not surprising that when there was a school shooting, many gun rights supporters responded by saying that teachers should be armed. Sounds kind of good on the surface, if you don't think about it much. I mean, you're adding a rather hefty job requirement onto teachers, aren't you? Not only are you asking them to be willing to carry a gun, but presumably to be trained in the art of using it. In a time where the same side of the political aisle are preaching austerity, and slashing government jobs (such as teachers), they want to also enlist those remaining teachers on the payroll to also be armed security?

But let's take a different tangent here. Think back to your school days. Think about the teachers you liked best, the ones with quirky eccentricities, the ones who seemed a bit "off," and the ones you downright hated. I don't know about you, but I had all sorts of teachers who I wouldn't trust with a firearm. Flighty airheads, short-tempered coaches, paranoid task-masters, alcoholic misfits. . .and those are just the bad examples. I also had wonderful teachers, from frail older ladies to wispy delicate beauties to kindly middle-aged bookish gentlemen. With rare exceptions, most of my teachers would have made horrifying choices to be playing Dirty Harry or John McClane through the school halls.

[Excerpt]

South Dakota Now Permits Teachers To Carry Guns In Classroom

On Friday, South Dakota become the first state to enact legislation, in the aftermath of the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, explicitly authorizing teachers and staff in K-12 schools to carry firearms. The measure “leaves it up to school districts to decide whether to allow armed teachers” and requires those who wish to carry guns to “undergo training similar to what law enforcement officers receive. . .”

Read more at: Think Progress

Mitt Romney: Teachers, Firefighters, Police not Americans?

Image of Mr. Interesting from
Think Progress.

When President Obama said, "The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government," the other day, it didn't even raise my eyebrows, because I knew what he meant. Every sentient human who heard it knew what he meant too, but it became a major "gaffe" anyhow. Because the news is starved for scandal, I guess. But when Mitt Romney countered with, “. . .He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”

Why wasn't this considered a gaffe? First, you have his sort of anachronistically sexist "firemen" instead of "firefighters." But forget that, exactly when did cops, firefighters and teachers become the enemy? I know that teachers are often punching bags for Rush Limbaugh and his imitators, but I thought our "first responders" were sacrosanct, particularly on the right. And then there's that last part. . ."and help the American people," as though none of these people are Americans? I find his whole response very odd, and certainly worse than the President's badly constructed sentence.


[Excerpt]


Romney Says America Doesn’t Need ‘More Firemen, More Policemen, More Teachers’

The last three years are the worst on record for public sector job loss, and the 700,000 government jobs that no longer exist remain a large drag on the American economy. . . 


Read more at: Think Progress