thefourthvine: Art from Forsaken, with the text "I know politics bore you." (Politicis)
Keep Hoping Machine Running ([personal profile] thefourthvine) wrote2012-12-21 07:14 pm

[Rant] So You Want to Arm the Teachers

My son is in preschool right now. Since Newtown, I've been staring at his school, at his building, at his classmates, and thinking of all those kids who are dead now. I don't think any parent can help that.

And, hey, I am willing to do whatever it takes to stop that from happening again. Suggestions I've heard from gun control proponents: Reduce gun access, reduce rate of fire, increase waiting periods, make smart guns (with biometric chips to prevent firing by someone other than owner) mandatory.

Suggestion I've heard again and again from gun fanatics: Arm teachers. When every teacher has a gun, every child will be safe.



Gun fanatics, guys, can we talk about this? I like that you're trying, I like that you've acknowledged we have a terrible problem and we need to solve it now. But I don't think your solution is going to work. I keep running through it in my mind and hitting walls.

First, if we arm the teachers - well, it's not enough to arm them, right? (Although I tell you what: as a parent and taxpayer, I really am not thrilled with the idea that my school taxes will be going on guns instead of books. And please tell me you don't expect the teachers to buy their own guns.) You also have to train them. And this isn't a situation where you'll be training someone who wants to learn - most of these people will be afraid of guns, unwilling to fire them, unwilling to learn, because guess what: people who want to fire guns go into the military or law enforcement or gun shop ownership or whatever. They don't become teachers. I mean, sure, there are some teachers who like guns and are good with them, but it's not going to be the majority by any means. Most of them are going to be like me. I am sure you could teach me to safely own, handle, and fire a gun. I'm also sure that it would take a lot of work on your part, because I have limited dexterity, I don't have good aim, I (like many people) tend to freeze and shut down when I'm scared, and most of all: I don't want to learn to shoot a gun. I mean, most teachers will be like me unless you prioritize the ability to use firearms over the ability to, say, teach reading.

And these people can't just be trained a little. They have to be good enough to make a targeted shot when they're terrified (and remember: a lot of them, like me, will be prone to shutting down or freezing in an emergency; that is a human thing that happens), in a classroom where any miss means they may become the child-murderer. They have to be good enough to know when to fire. They have to be good enough to know when not to fire. Even police officers aren't always that good (links to many, many cases available as necessary), and police officers go into their careers expecting to learn to fire guns.

In other words, you're talking about adding a whole lot of training. For every teacher in every classroom in the country. Even though some states are so desperate for (cheap) teachers they've cut requirements and allow teachers to get certified for teaching over time as they're teaching. But the gun training - to be safe with a gun, to be useful with a gun, you have to know all this stuff before you step into the classroom. So you're proposing we prioritize educating teachers about guns over educating teachers about teaching.

Now. Let's say you get your wish. We no longer have teachers. We have a vaguely-educated militia heading up our nation's classrooms. Wow, I really hope no teacher ever loses it. And I say this as someone who once watched her teacher have a nervous breakdown. We sat frozen in our seats, twenty-two fourteen-year-old targets, as he yelled, wept, and threw things at us - pencils, chalk, a mug, books. Despite the noise and the open door, it took twenty minutes for someone to come help us. If he'd had access to a gun, boy, that would have gone a lot better, right?

No. I'd be dead.

And, hey, let's hope no teacher who has been trained to respond to threats by shooting them, trained to shoot instantly and well, ever feels threatened by a student at all. Or wants power over a student at all.

Or are you saying you're okay with that kind of collateral damage? With kids at risk from their teachers if the teachers are having a bad day or a bad time? Because to me this sounds like a recipe for more dead kids, not fewer. And what I want is no dead kids.

I don't know how to solve that one, but let's assume you do. (Spoiler: You won't.) Now we have our teachers, and they're trained, and they're armed, and they're ready and willing to shoot. Where do you keep the guns? If they're safely stored in the classroom - in a locked box, ammunition separate from the gun - then I'm not really clear on how the teacher is going to get to the gun in case of a mass shooting.

And if they're not safely stored, if they're on the teacher - look, have you been to a classroom recently? Not a high school. A preschool. A kindergarten. A first grade classroom. Those teachers have a lot of physical contact with the students. It's inevitable. My son is carried around by his teachers, he sits on their laps, he hugs them. And he's curious. He gets into everything. I can tell you: if you spend a lot of time in physical contact with a small child, that child will investigate your bra, your glasses, your hair, your buttons, the contents of your pockets. The inside of your nose and ears if you have even a moment's distraction. There's no strap or buckle that will keep kids out of anything; you need a lock. With a key in another location. That the kids don't know about. (Yes, of course a four year old can use a lock to open a door and can find a key if he knows where it's kept.) But we just discussed how locks won't work.

So how do we keep these curious, investigating kids away from the guns? Are we back at biometric sensors? Hey, then can we just try the biometric sensors first, see how that works, and then maybe spend a fortune and incur a huge risk to raise our very first teaching army? Seems like the biometric sensors would be easier, cost less, and be faster. Or are you saying that you want the teachers six feet from their students at all times? Because you'll need a fence if you want that. An unclimbable one, let me just mention, as the parent of a climber. (And you'll also need an adult on the other side of the fence, one who isn't armed, because the younger kids don't respond well to teachers under glass. And that adult can't be armed. Wait, we're back to unarmed teachers. WHAT NOW?)

Now let's summarize, proponent of armed teachers. Your vision of our safe, glorious future:
  1. Teachers untrained in teaching.
  2. Who are crack shots with extensive weapons training.
  3. Who are armed.
  4. Who teach from behind Plexiglas walls.
  5. In disintegrating schools (because I can't imagine you're going to approve massive tax increases to pay for all this training and arming of teachers).
  6. With minimal equipment aside from all the guns and ammo (because again).
Holy shit. You've just turned the education system into a giant prison system, incarcerating children as young (in my state) as three. And, let me remind you, unless you think every single teacher, all 7.2 million of them (according to the US Census), is safe and stable and unlikely to snap, you've put the kids at greater risk.

No. No, no, a thousand times no. If this is your plan, if this is the best you can do, then you really, really, REALLY need not to be firing guns, or carrying guns, or in the presence of guns. You are exactly who should not be armed. Because you're fucking dangerous, out of touch with reality, frothing at the mouth rabid.

And I thank you for showing me how to vote. I will absolutely vote to take your guns away.
ilyena_sylph: picture of Labyrinth!faerie with 'careful, i bite' as text (Default)

[personal profile] ilyena_sylph 2012-12-22 06:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Thank you very much.
soc_puppet: Words "Baseless Opinion" in orange (Baseless Opinion)

[personal profile] soc_puppet 2012-12-22 06:28 pm (UTC)(link)
My thought process for restricting gun access based on proximity to other humans/households (closer = more restrictions, farther away = fewer restrictions) goes approximately like this:

PROS:

* People living closely packed together will generally be more stressed by one another than people living with greater distances between them

* People living in smaller communities are more likely to think of the people around them as actual people (Dunbar's number/monkeysphere?)

* The farther away you live from other people and the fewer people you see in general, the fewer people there are to shoot

CONS:

* Horrible racist connotations! I don't think that POC are inherently more violent than white folks, but the GOP basically builds its platform on the opposite idea. If the conservadouche collective ever thinks of this, some sort of proximity-based gun restriction stuff could actually get passed, but I have no doubt that they would frame it as "Keep guns out of the hands of those scary urban POC!" More gun control would be nice, but I would feel seriously icky if that's the reason we actually got it. Because ew.


I was at an event once where a Republican state-level congressperson spoke about how one of the (at the time few) things he seriously disagreed with his party on gun control, and he specifically said it was because he lived in a large city. The concept of proximity-based gun control has been kicking around in my head since then, but very rarely at the forefront of my thoughts. I think it could actually work as a viable proposition, but I've been seriously educated on my own white privilege since I first thought of it and the GOP positively reeks of racism.
elf: Rainbow sparkly fairy (Default)

[personal profile] elf 2012-12-22 06:53 pm (UTC)(link)
I think the term you're looking for is "population density," not "proximity." It's not a matter of how close your neighbor is but how many neighbors live within a mile of you. (My zip code: 13,000 people/sq mile.)

And yeah, there is pretty much no way to discuss that concept without dealing with the fact that people of color historically got shoved into tiny crowded areas of large cities, and since those are the areas with the most crime and violence, a whole lot of racist people think that's a function of race rather than population density and urban cultural stresses.

Potentially: change the dialogue from "population density" to "education." A great deal of the crowded urban areas are low-education... but so are a lot of rural areas. Argue for better training requirements for gun ownership, mandatory safety measures (gun locks etc), a demonstrated ability to describe the care, maintenance and usage features of the gun, a background check free of signs of violence or tendencies to misuse dangerous equipment (throw DUI in there)... the results would still come out "most inner-city residents shouldn't have guns" but they'd also say "a lot of rural people don't seem to be careful enough to be trusted with a gun, either."

I think the discussion could be shifted from demographic politics to personal responsibility by insisting that anyone who can't be bothered to stay sober while operating a two-ton 60MPH pile of metal in public, shouldn't be allowed to handle projectile weapons either.
brownbetty: (Default)

[personal profile] brownbetty 2012-12-22 07:07 pm (UTC)(link)
I stabbed my brother in the hand with a pencil. My younger brother. I don't remember why I was angry, and I was horrified right afterward, but jesus.

I mean, even gun defenders will generally argue that guns should be kept away from kids except under supervision, and kids who will be gun adjacent should be trained to respsect guns, but I'm just saying. Childhood is not a time of great decision-making.
elf: Rainbow sparkly fairy (Default)

[personal profile] elf 2012-12-22 07:09 pm (UTC)(link)
Moving from middle-class suburbs in CA to rural Arkansas to inner-city CA was fascinating.

I am baffled at how the people I know now react to the existence of guns. I don't shoot; I have fired a gun I think twice in my life (once as a teen; my stepbrother insisted; I fired into the woodpile and my hand hurt for the rest of the day; once as an adult, a black-powder renfaire gun at a training exercise). I have no interest in having or using a gun, nothing but the vaguest ideas of safety or maintenance... but I can't believe people get ALL FREAKED OUT over guns, but not cars.

Cars kill a lot more people in the U.S. than guns. Cars get mishandled a lot more, have more accidents from bad maintenance, are owned and used in violation of the law (my state requires insurance, which a lot of people don't carry), and there's no movement to remove cars or restrict their ownership by psych evaluation, just a constant string of demands to spot the individuals most likely to misuse them, and remove those people's access.

I want guns to be treated the same way: Presume that almost everyone is *likely* capable of using one safely, require some training and licensing to get that permission, and have a long list of acts that can remove that permission, based on statistics about likelihood of danger to others.

And they don't belong in classrooms "in case of shooters" any more than police vans belong on football fields "in case of riots." Being able to construct a situation where that would be the perfect tool does not mean that's a useful allocation of resources, nor that there aren't hundreds of other potential situations where the tool just makes everything worse.
brownbetty: (Default)

[personal profile] brownbetty 2012-12-22 07:10 pm (UTC)(link)
We gave one of our teachers a nervous breakdown. It was her first year, poor lamb.
marina: (Default)

[personal profile] marina 2012-12-22 07:17 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm from a country with a mandatory military draft. A draft that requires anyone drafted to go through firearms training and many to carry and care for firearms for the duration of their service (2-3 years). Most of the people I know (myself included) have fired an M16 and would have no problem being saddled with a gun again if the need ever arose.

The thought of teachers - or any professionals really who were not cops or soldiers - carrying guns routinely, TERRIFIES ME. The gun laws in my country prevent anyone who isn't in the security business to carry one (and there are still harsh restrictions on that!) and that shit has NEVER BEEN CONTESTED IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE. NO ONE has ever brought up that we should arm [people who work where violent crime happened] as a way to prevent violent crime and MOST PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY ARE CERTIFIED TO USE A GUN.

Basically, as someone who has gun training, as someone who is comfortable around guns, the NRA terrifies me.
ilyena_sylph: Uncle Sam mini panel, the destroyed Murrah building with text 'and a scream that sounds like a plea. stop breaking down' (Uncle Sam: stop breaking down)

[personal profile] ilyena_sylph 2012-12-22 07:36 pm (UTC)(link)
I. I love your brain.

That is a fantastic idea.
fleurrochard: A black and white picture of a little girl playing air-guitar and singing (Default)

[personal profile] fleurrochard 2012-12-22 07:40 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm not from the US, so I won't get into this discussion any further, but only about this:

but I can't believe people get ALL FREAKED OUT over guns, but not cars.

Cars kill a lot more people in the U.S. than guns.


I'm pretty sure that indeed more people are killed by cars than by guns in the US, but there is, in my opinion, a very important difference: guns are built to harm (whether in defence or in offence), cars are not. Can you harm with them? Of course. But they're not built with the intention to harm.
bobbiewickham: Kalinda Sharma of The Good Wife (Default)

[personal profile] bobbiewickham 2012-12-22 08:33 pm (UTC)(link)
You don't know me. I was linked here from Selena's DW. Just popping in to say that I wholeheartedly agree. The "more guns" crowd is living in a macho fantasy world where it's pretty easy to accurately identify and shoot the perpetrator of a gun massacre. A fantasy world where there's no great risk of a "responsible gun owner" becoming physically or mentally incapable of using a gun safely, or having their gun stolen by someone who is. They've fallen in love with their delusions, and it's killing us.
lederhosen: (Default)

[personal profile] lederhosen 2012-12-22 11:23 pm (UTC)(link)
That was one of the big things that happened in Australia in 1996: making gun laws consistent across states.

OTOH, "states' rights" seems to be a much more influential dogma in the USA than it does here.
kathmandu: Close-up of pussywillow catkins. (Default)

[personal profile] kathmandu 2012-12-23 12:54 am (UTC)(link)
That's because, in the USA, "states' rights" is code for "we wanna be kings of our own little mountains so we can practice our bigotry without restraint by any law". Been that way since before the US civil war.
kathmandu: Close-up of pussywillow catkins. (Default)

[personal profile] kathmandu 2012-12-23 01:15 am (UTC)(link)
Tenured Radical wrote about being a teacher, during a lockdown because of a shooter, and how being armed BUT NOT having extensive training in near-combat SWAT-type situations would only have made things worse.
sabra_n: (Default)

[personal profile] sabra_n 2012-12-23 02:19 am (UTC)(link)
What keeps spinning in my head is what Ta-Nehisi Coates has been writing: People who assume that they need to carry guns - concealed guns, at that!- to be safe in their schools and hospitals and places of worship are assuming pretty awful things about their neighbors. I find myself feeling more essentially conservative than political conservatives: I trust my neighbors and workmates and classmates, generally speaking, not to shoot me in the face. I trust in civilization and yes, the cops, to generally prevent that kind of thing from happening.

Which I know is a privilege of having lived in safe or at least safeish neighborhoods most of my life, but seriously, even in West Philadelphia, it never entered my head that the way to defend myself from gun crime was to have a gun. If I was minding my own business and someone decided to shoot me, then I would be shot. The first person to whip out their weapon always has the advantage, no? So what are we going to do, walk around like the guys in that SNL sketch a few weeks ago, pointing weapons at each other over the heads of our children? That isn't civilization anymore; that's freaking Mad Max. Or the Wild West.

Page 4 of 5