A couple weeks ago, I wrote an article on if college students should be allowed to have weapons on campus. Now, I’m taking an objective look at teachers and if they should be allowed to have them on campus. Here are both sides of the argument through the perspectives of many.
Why would teachers have them if they were lawful?
The argument in favor of teachers being equipped with guns on campus is that teachers would better be able to protect themselves and other students if they were lawfully able to. For example, if a predator walked onto a high school campus, where there is not much security, the students would be at the whim of the predator. As told by this article, in 2008, a man in Illinois, though on house arrest, was able to walk into an elementary school and abduct a child. It was not hard for him to break into a lock door or break out of his ankle monitor. With events happening such as these, is it the best choice to disable responsible, lawfully-approved teachers from protecting the students? The tactic, approved by one school in Texas in 2008, offers to “…ward off a massacre along the lines of what happened at Columbine high school in 1999,” as expressed by the NYTimes.
Why should weaponry be considered unlawful for teachers to carry in school?
The opposing side of the argument is one of valid points, too. Among their many reasons to keep guns out of the hands of teachers in schools, is that it could fall into the hands of a student and then be used, ironically, to harm instead of help. Just because a weapon is concealed does not mean people can not find it and then steal it. The other focal point of the argument is that teachers, the very people who are supposed to protect the students, could harm the students. You are never able to tell the mental state of someone, because it can change so suddenly, regardless of the extensive background checks that teachers go through to get their positions.
An article from fictionpress depicts a different viewpoint that is unbiased, stating, “…Remember, making this a legal act cannot hurt our society. If the citizens do not follow the rules that we set in place, they will suffer the consequences but that minority of people cannot take away the rest of the people’s rights…”
What it comes down to is if the lawmakers would let fear bias them in their approval or disapproval of the subject, as with any other law. Do we let a few outliers depict what happens to the rest of society? However, is it worth putting all of our citizens at risk, because a few will have consequences to face? If we are objectively looking at past homicides, even so far as genocides, do the culprits ever truly care that there will be consequences for what they have done? Most of the time, unstable people who would be capable of heinous acts such as murder and child abduction lack empathy.