Consider the following scenario: An armed perpetrator enters a child’s school with the intent to destroy a kid’s life. While doing so, they open fire on a classroom―probably the first one they see―and they do so without pause. Not too long later, the shooting stops, but lives are taken. Trauma ensues. Suffering overthrows the families.

We all know the story. Parkland. Sandy Hook. Columbine. These have become tragic reminders of the harm others can inflict on the innocent. 

At the moment a man or woman enters a school with the intent to kill, they could do a good deal of harm, but if there is someone to protect the students with a firearm, the chances of death could decrease. 

Many schools started allowing their teachers to carry firearms on school campuses after the Parkland shooting. According to CBS News, “In 2010, a gun wielding man walked into a school board meeting, eventually firing right at Bill Husfelt [a Superintendent] and others. He missed and was shot by a security guard before taking his own life.” 

Husfelt mentioned in the same article that his understanding of violence changed when he became a victim. He realized he wanted to be able to protect himself. Teachers would probably feel the same way as Husfelt when facing a dangerous situation.

A 34-year-old Ohio Special Education teacher, according to Kalhan Rosenblatt of NBC News, said, “My students are my kids, basically, and I want to be able to protect them just like I would protect my own son.” When a teacher like this is allowed to carry, she gives her students and all the students at her school a chance to go home to their parents. 

Many schools in Florida have been successful in allowing teachers to carry after they go through the right procedures. In order for these teachers to have a gun on school campuses, they have to go through a “background check, psychological exam and more than 140 hours of range training”, said the aforementioned CBS News article.

In a speech by President Donald Trump after the Parkland shooting, he stated “[I] agree that armed teachers with training and experience who ‘love their students’ might be better able to protect them in an active shooting scenario than an armed police officer.” 

When a teacher has their range training and is comfortable with their gun, it only takes one shot to injure a shooter to where they can’t fire a gun but aren’t dead either. 

Ironically, when schools call the cops, they are hoping that someone comes with a gun to protect them from the intruder. “Even people who say, ‘We don’t want guns in our schools,’ well, when an event happens, you’re calling the police and you’re hoping they bring guns,” said Jim Irvine, president of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation, according to NBC news.

There is even an anonymous teacher here at Mead High School who feels that it could be an option in schools. This teacher did mention that it should definitely not be the first option that comes to mind but that self-defense techniques can be used to fight back. This teacher also said they feel the new SRO (Student Resource Officer) is committed to MHS and the safety of students, but nevertheless, they did mention teachers carrying as an option. 

With all of this said, consider the scenario we started out with: an armed perpetrator enters a child’s classroom… do we really want them to have all of the power?