To the editor:
Mr. Arthur Greenman’s Letter to the Editor (“Armed teachers increase the feeling of safety in schools,” March 24, A4) left me shaking my head in disbelief.
As is typical of “more guns” advocates, his train of thought relies solely on “what-if” scenarios. “What if” a teacher is a National Rifle Association member? “What if” a shooter could choose between schools with different firearm policies? “What if” a certain individual had access to a firearm? Never mind the fact that he advocates for the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction in an educational environment.
Were teachers to be allowed to carry firearms in school, I would expect them to undergo a psychological evaluation just as law enforcement does. They would also need to receive basic training on concepts such as safety rules, sight alignment/sight picture, breath control, assembly/disassembly, cleaning and maintenance, as well as yearly range certification. Additionally, teachers would need to be trained in lawful use and escalation of force, as well as the psychological aspects of making a potentially lethal decision. This would all have to take place during teachers’ off time (they’ll have to make time for grading, lesson plans, educational training, etc.), and at taxpayer expense.
Taxpayer funds would be better spent on active shooter training for educational staff (such as that provided by the Hancock County Sheriff’s Office), an upgrade to facility physical security (to include properly trained/certified School Resource Officers) and additional crisis intervention training/counseling staff. These are common sense steps that can contribute to school safety, without putting students and staff at further risk.
Andre Pawlowski
New Palestine
