Cindy Bullock, a secretary at Timpanogos Academy, a charter school in Lindon, Utah, participates in shooting drills at the Utah County Sheriff’s Office shooting range during training for teachers and school staff, in Spanish Fork Canyon, Utah, in late June 2019. About 30 teachers in Utah spent their summer learning how to pack wounds and shoot guns as part of training held by police to prepare educators for a mass shooting at their schools. (Rick Bowmer / Associated Press)

Cindy Bullock, a secretary at Timpanogos Academy, a charter school in Lindon, Utah, participates in shooting drills at the Utah County Sheriff’s Office shooting range during training for teachers and school staff, in Spanish Fork Canyon, Utah, in late June 2019. About 30 teachers in Utah spent their summer learning how to pack wounds and shoot guns as part of training held by police to prepare educators for a mass shooting at their schools. (Rick Bowmer / Associated Press)

Viewpoint: Can armed teachers make schools more safe or less?

There are a few incidents where an armed teacher ended a threat, but the drawbacks are numerous.

By Aimee Huff and Michelle Barnhart / For The Conversation

In the wake of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, some elected officials are making calls anew for teachers to be armed and trained to use firearms to protect the nation’s schools. To shine light on the matter, The Conversation reached out to Aimee Huff and Michelle Barnhart, two Oregon State University scholars who have studied the ins and outs of putting guns in the hands of the nation’s teachers as a way to protect students.

What does the public think about arming teachers?

According to a 2021 poll, 43 percent of Americans supported policies that allow school personnel to carry guns in schools.

But if you take a closer look, you see that most of that support comes from Republicans and gun-owners. For instance, 66 percent of Republican respondents expressed support for such policies, versus just 24 percent of Democratic respondents. And 63 percent of gun owners supported allowing school personnel to carry guns, versus just 33 percent of non-gun owners.

The majority of teachers, parents and students oppose allowing teachers to carry guns.

The largest teachers unions, including the National Education Association, also oppose arming teachers, arguing that bringing more guns into schools “makes schools more dangerous and does nothing to shield our students and educators from gun violence.”

These teachers unions advocate a preventive approach that includes stronger gun regulations.

While the public is justifiably concerned with eliminating school shootings, there is disagreement over the policies and actions that would be most effective. A 2021 study found that 70 percent of Americans supported the idea of armed school resource officers and law enforcement in schools, but only 41 percent supported the idea of training teachers to carry guns in schools.

In our research on how Americans think about the rights and responsibilities related to armed self-defense, we even find disagreement among conservative gun owners over how to best protect schoolchildren. Some advocate arming teachers, while other gun owners believe guns in schools ultimately make children less safe. These conservative opponents of arming teachers instead support fortifying the building’s design and features.

After the massacre in Uvalde, we are seeing renewed calls from politicians to arm teachers and provide them with specialized training.

However, amid conflicting reports about whether police officers engaged the Robb Elementary School shooter, there are renewed questions about whether armed teachers would make a difference. Police have acknowledged they didn’t enter the school even as kids frantically dialed 911.

Given that there were also armed officers present at the Columbine and Parkland school massacres in 1999 and 2018, respectively, the public is understandably right to wonder whether armed teachers can effectively neutralize a shooter. Amid reports that trained and experienced police officers may have been unable or unwilling to intervene against the Uvalde shooter, it’s not clear whether teachers would be, either.

What are the potential drawbacks of arming teachers?

Arming teachers introduces risks to students and staff, as well as school districts themselves. These include the risk of teachers accidentally shooting themselves or students and fellow staff. There are also moral and legal risks associated with improper or inaccurate defensive use of a firearm; even for teachers who have undertaken specialized firearms training.

One study found that highly trained police in gunfights hit their target only 18 percent of the time. Even if teachers, who would likely have less training, achieve the same accuracy, 4 or 5 of every 6 bullets fired by a teacher would hit something or someone other than the shooter. Further, a teacher responding with force to a shooter may be mistaken for the perpetrator by law enforcement or by armed colleagues.

Introducing guns to the school environment also poses everyday risks. Armed teachers may unintentionally discharge their firearm. For instance, an armed police officer accidentally discharged his weapon in his office at a school in Alexandria, Virginia in 2018. Guns can also fall into the wrong hands. Research on shootings that took place in hospital emergency rooms found that in 23 percent of the cases, the weapon used was a gun the perpetrator took from a hospital security guard.

Students could also access firearms that are improperly stored or mishandled. Improper storage is a common problem among American gun owners. In a school setting, this has resulted in students finding a teacher’s misplaced firearm, sometimes taking it or reporting it to another school official. News reports show that guns carried into schools have fallen out of teachers’ clothing, and have been left in bathrooms and locker rooms. There have also been reports of students stealing guns from teachers.

Insurance companies also see concealed guns on school grounds as creating a heightened liability risk.

Other drawbacks to arming teachers involve the learning environment. In particular, owing to structural racism and discriminatory school security policies, Black high school students are less supportive than white students of arming teachers — 16 percent versus 26 percent — and report feeling less safe if teachers are carrying firearms.

What are the arguments for arming teachers?

Proponents emphasize that teachers, as Americans, have a right to use firearms to defend themselves against violent crime, including a school shooter. Our research shows that some people interpret their right to armed self-defense as a moral obligation, and argue that teachers have a right and a responsibility to use firearms to protect themselves and their students.

Parents who regularly carry handguns to protect themselves and their children may take comfort knowing that their child’s teacher could perform the role of protector at school.

In a school shooting, where lives can be saved or ended in a matter of seconds, some people may feel more secure believing a shooter would immediately meet armed resistance from a teacher without needing to wait for an armed school officer to respond.

Have any school districts allowed teachers to arm themselves?

Yes. Teachers may carry guns at school in districts in at least 19 states. The idea surfaced as a viable policy after the 1999 Columbine shooting, and gained momentum after the 2018 Parkland shooting.

The number of school districts that permit teachers to be armed is difficult to ascertain. Policies vary across states. New York bars school districts from allowing teachers to carry guns, while Missouri and Montana authorize teachers to carry firearms.

What were the results?

There are documented incidents of school staff using their firearm to neutralize a shooter. However, researchers have not found evidence that arming teachers increases school safety. Rather, arming teachers may contribute to a false sense of security for teachers, students and the community.

Aimee Huff is an associate professor of marketing and consumer culture at Oregon State University. Michelle Barnhart is an associate professor of marketing at Oregon State University and has researched gun culture, firearms policy and gun violence prevention. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Friday, May 3

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

A driver in a Tesla reportedly on "autopilot" allegedly crashed into a Snohomish County Sheriff's Office patrol SUV that was parked on the roadside Saturday in Lake Stevens. There were no injuries. (Snohomish County Sheriff's Office)
Editorial: Tesla’s Autopilot may be ‘unsafe at any speed’

An accident in Maltby involving a Tesla and a motorcycle raises fresh concerns amid hundreds of crashes.

Schwab: Challanged by a letter writer; why Biden is better

Rather than explain why not to re-enter a burning building, some reasons to stick with President Biden.

RFK’s good traits don’t cancel out his conspriacy theories

A recent Herald opinion piece professed admiration for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,… Continue reading

It’s up to God to judge Trump’s, Biden’s faith

A recent letter to the editor questioned the Christianity of Donald Trump.… Continue reading

Set up single-payer health care coverage

I agree with a recent letter regarding health care spending. This country… Continue reading

Nicholas Kristof: How protesters can better help Palestinians

Protest has its place, but what’s happening now has displaced attention on those suffering in Gaza.

A Black-capped Chickadee sits on a branch in the Narbeck Wetland Sanctuary on Wednesday, April 24, 2024 in Everett, Washington. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Bird act’s renewal can aid in saving species

It provides funding for environmental efforts, and shows the importance of policy in an election year.

Volunteers with Stop the Sweeps hold flyers as they talk with people during a rally outside The Pioneer Courthouse on Monday, April 22, 2024, in Portland, Ore. The rally was held on Monday as the Supreme Court wrestled with major questions about the growing issue of homelessness. The court considered whether cities can punish people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)
Editorial: Cities don’t need to wait for ruling on homelessness

Forcing people ‘down the road’ won’t end homelessness; providing housing and support services will.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Thursday, May 2

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Health care coverage for undocumented an insult to taxpayers

I just read that Washington sate has been granted a federal waiver… Continue reading

Until EVs, little concern shown for impacts of lithium mining

To all of the fossil fuel defenders who are now suddenly worried… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.