On October 4, 2006, in the wake of school shootings in Colorado, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, Frank Lasee, R-Green Bay, state Representative, recommended teachers carry guns in schools saying, “I want to end the turkey shoots that go on in our schools … I don’t suggest [arming teachers] is the only answer or the silver bullet to solve all our school violence problems, but it’s part of the puzzle of making our schools a safer place for our children.”
Frank is my cousin and friend. The news traveled through our family like a brush fire. Most of us were shocked and so were people in law enforcement and education. The idea seemed foolish.
Fast forward a few years, and in a textbook I ordered for my creative writing class, I found an editorial piece by Warren J. Bowe called, “Guns for Teachers.” It was in response to Frank’s proposal. Here is what Bowe wrote:
Finally the Republicans have found a meaningful way to support teachers. As both a teacher and a citizen, I spotted the win-win logic of Representative Frank Lasee’s proposal immediately. Not only would schools be safer, but the billions added to Wisconsin’s economy by a new school gun industry would be a great windfall for the state.
With more than 60,000 teachers in Wisconsin’s public schools alone, such a law would help both mom-and-pop gun shops and the big retailers. Specialty products could include guns manufactured in school colors or engraved with school logos. Gun accessories will bring in additional revenue. I would need an everyday holster as well as one for such special occasions as parent-teacher conferences, concerts, athletic events, etc.
While this proposed legislation is way better than that supporting the shooting of feral cats, a few kinks would need to be worked out. For example, would the state taxpayers fund the law, or would teachers have to pay for the heat they pack? Would there be a special ammunition budget? Would we be given extra in-service time for range practice? Could we implement merit pay for those of us who are crack shots?
And more important, how threatening would a student need to be before we get to shoot them? In the interim, maybe we could just start hitting them again.
Bowe’s essay may poke fun at Frank’s idea, but there is also merit in what he writes. Like Bowe, I am a teacher and can no more imagine guns in schools than I can armed guards in churches. But unfortunately that is the course we are on, and it won’t solve the problem. Since the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, there have been over seventy mass school shootings.
The shooter is often characterized as someone with mental health and behavioral issues. Others have been bullied in school or have come from broken homes. Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were described as geeks and nerds. The Sandy Hook shooter, twenty-year-old Adam Lanza had emotional problems and violent tendencies. The police had been called to Nikolas Cruz’s house twenty-three times. Cruz is the most, recent school shooter who killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. He had been terrorizing neighbors and classmates for years.
Having guns in schools is an example of fighting fire with fire, and though this might work in a controlled burn, this one-size-fits-all approach to a complicated problem is not only impractical, it is dangerous. Joking aside, Bowe’s questions merit consideration. Would taxpayers pay for guns in schools? Would teachers willing to carry guns receive compensation? After that, the questions turn to more serious matters. Are teachers fired for refusing to work in schools where there are guns on campus? Do parents have a say in whether or not they want guns in their children’s schools? What are the consequences for teachers if, in a gun related situation, they kill an innocent child or school employee? What is protocol if a student assaults an armed teacher and takes possession of a gun?
Still there are other things to consider before arming teachers. If every school in the nation is armed against potential shooters, how does this prevent mass shootings? On October 2, 2017 sixty-four-year-old Stephan Paddock shot fifty-nine people at a concert in Las Vegas wounding 500 others. Twenty-six-year-old Devin Patrick Kelley opened fire inside a small Baptist church in Sutherland Springs, Texas on November 5, 2017. Are all public spaces to provide armed guards before we feel safe?
With character profiles of mass shooters being as varied as their targets, bringing about social change seems a more reasonable solution than a teacher strapping on a Colt .45. When I was a kid, we were taught in school that littering was wrong. A commercial ran on television where an American Indian paddled a canoe through a polluted river with the slogan, “Keep America Beautiful.” When I was in the fifth grade our teachers taught us the health risks of smoking. Kids got the message and begged their parents to give up cigarettes. Had we started a gun reform program in schools after Columbine, we would have a generation of people in their twenties with very different views regarding gun ownership and gun laws. Some may argue educating kids would take too long, and that something needs to be done now. I agree. Schools can be made safer without guns. It is time that school boards and administration, teachers, parent, kids, law enforcement agencies, mental health professionals, and lawmakers come together to create safe schools. It is also time that we educate our children about the dangers and proper use of firearms.
It is twelve years since Frank Lasee caused quite a stir with his support for guns in schools and now we have a President who is in favor of this short-sighted idea. Earlier this week, big businesses like Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart agreed to no longer sell high-powered rifles and have raised the age of gun buyers to twenty-one. Money talks and corporations like Enterprise Rent-A-Car, MetLife, and United Airlines have cut ties with the NRA. It is time for change. It is time for well-informed conversations and new gun laws.