A recent episode of CNN’s new program titled “The CNN Guns Project” profiles a small school district in Harrold, Texas that has recently begun arming teachers in anticipation of another catastrophic school shooting.
When I glimpsed the headline, “Teachers with Guns,” on CNN.com, my stomach dropped. I have long held the opinion that the answer to gun violence in America is definitely not more guns. Expanding gun rights for citizens by removing barriers to gun access and limitations on civilian weapon capabilities will only make firearms more accessible to those who wish to do harm and widen the margin for fatal accidents.
I had little patience for the trigger-happy gun enthusiasts who I was sure I was about to see defend their right to eliminate anything that moves. Still, as I began to hear the perspectives of the interviewees, my opinion softened.
The video includes interviews from the school’s superintendent, David Thweatt. His argument is the school’s rural position.
Thweatt explains that for some schools, emergency first respondents could be up to 30 minutes away.
Such a huge amount of time waiting for armed authorities could cost innumerable lives. Thweatt ?maintained that they were used to fending for themselves when troubles arose, and the citizens of Harrold intended to continue doing just that in their schools.
I was nearly convinced that this was indeed the most logical remedy to the absence of immediate first respondents until Superintendent David Thweatt uttered the following words: “We know who the good people are, we know who the bad people are, and we’re going to be able to assess very, very quickly what’s going on.”
I remembered exactly why civilians shouldn’t carry guns and appoint themselves ?policemen.
Thweatt’s claim that he knew exactly who was “good” and who was “bad,” the latter of which can be interpreted in far too many ways, is ?haunting.
It highlights the immense gap between his training as a first respondent in the event of a crisis and what is actually required of a law enforcement professional.
If a school devolves into chaos because someone has begun committing murders at gunpoint, the last thing needed is a disillusioned staff member grabbing a gun.
He or she cannot be trusted to “be able to assess very, very quickly what’s going on” because he or she cannot be trusted to decide “who the good people are” and “who the bad people are.”
In the midst of young children, I never under any circumstances would decide that adding a second shooter — untrained, and ultimately without the tools of split-second crisis decision-making — would remedy the situation and put a stop to the shooting. Rationally, such a judgement lacks logic.
Recently, we have seen that even law enforcement officials cannot be trusted to make the correct instantaneous decision in a high-risk, high-stress situation when holding a firearm or exerting their authority over civilians.
How can we then expect a teacher, with dramatically less training, to perform any better?
Thweatt’s decision to arm his teachers is wrong, and I hope with all my might that there are never consequences for his grievous misjudgment.
sbkissel@indiana.edu
