Right to Keep and Bear Arms in School Faculty

Argument Against 

The Second Amendment stipulates that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be contravened. However, even though this amendment and right to keep or bear arms is proffered to all citizens regardless of their occupations, I believe there are some professions such as teaching that could proffer more danger than safety. The ethical consideration here is that the teaching faculty or staff interact or deal with children or teenagers who could be put in more jeopardy if the staffs discharge their weapons during a shootout. In essence, the right to keep or bear arms is only protected by the Second Amendment and not created by the same. As such, the Second Amendment does not grant the right, but instead, it merely asserts that it may not be violated or infringed by the government. Moreover, the Amendment refers to “a well-regulated Militia” which by all considerations is a precept that the teaching fraternity and educators do not satisfy. To this end, school faculty or staff should not be permitted to carry guns on school property regardless of whether it is for personal defense.

Essentially, it is only prudent that firearms should be kept at the place of business, residence, or temporary stay away from schools. This is a particularly fundamental axiom because schools are more of social amenities than business entities since they are mostly not for profit. On this accord, carrying guns to schools by staff threatens the safety of the children and further increases the chances of tragic shootings. Moreover, reiterating Giffords Law Center (2018) sentiments calls to arm teachers will only result in more injuries and deaths to not only students but also staff and faculty. Further, guns in schools infringe on the First Amendment right to academic freedom of speech since most students will be afraid of indulging in an open discourse that is essential to the school experience. Consequently, allowing staff and faculty to carry firearms will encourage other students also to sneak and bring weapons to school that could be detrimental in terms of the severity of suicides and homicides in schools.

Counterarguments and Rebuttal 

Opponents, on the other hand, argue that school faculty should be allowed to bear weapons because the fact that schools are designated no-gun zones has made them a soft target and vulnerable. This is because culprits know that the staff and students are not allowed to carry guns. However, Giffords Law Center (2018) refutes this argument by asserting that laws and restrictions by governing bodies of higher education institutions regarding carrying firearms to school have resulted to limited access to guns on campus by students, and as such, school environments have become safe havens away from gun violence rampant elsewhere. Further, historical statistics between 1992 and 2006 have indicated that murders of kids aged five to eighteen years were fifty times more rampant outside than within schools which makes schools safer than outside environments.

Also, opponents counter-argue that training teachers will improve the safety outcomes for students and staff, and that rather than spending money on thwarting arming calls, efforts should be directed towards training teachers who will better protect students in a shootout than a police officer could as asserted by president Trump, (Education Week Staff, 2018). In rebuttal, statistics indicate that training staff towards the above mandate is more expensive than hiring a school resource officer. Elaborately, employing such an officer will cost a district averagely 50,000 dollars annually as opposed to training staff members whereby only thirteen of them could require 68, 000 dollars annually from the district, (Chavez, 2018). Moreover, educators and staff such as the high school principal from Florida that survived an active school shootout assert that the idea of arming teachers is misguided because the teacher’s duty is to teach not to protect, (Proulx, 2018). The principal’s assertion resonates with the 2015 New York Times poll which revealed that 57% of all respondents opposed the idea of allowing teachers to carry guns to school, (Education Week Staff, 2018).

The upshot here is not that the Second Amendment is misguided; instead, its interpretation by proponents of arming teachers is. What is essential is increasing the police presence in schools as well as implementing more stringent school policies regarding guns to ensure safety – approaches that have historically been efficacious.

References

Chavez, N. (2018). These schools say arming teachers 'can be done right.' Cable News Network . Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/24/us/armed-teachers-states-trnd/index.html 

Education Week Staff. (2018). Should teachers carry guns? The debate explained. Education Week . Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/arming-teachers.html 

Giffords Law Center. (2018). Guns in schools. Retrieved from https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/guns-in-schools/ 

Proulx, N. (2018). Should teachers be armed with guns? The New York Times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/learning/should-teachers-be-armed-with-guns.html