I'm a teacher Curv...but being a conservative, religious, gun-toting whacko...I'm not sure everyone wants to hear my opinion.
Oh well...you're going to get it anyway.
Let me make two points about this topic.
First, in Israeli schools both the teachers and the guards are armed. Neither the students or their parents bat an eye about this...hardly surprising since the entire country, out of necessity, is an armed camp. Yet, despite the availability of weapons, all the scarey, what-if, bug-a-boo scenarios that opponents of armed teachers and guards in American schools are constantly obsessing over never occur.
To be perfectly fair, the students were never the problem in Israel. Yet, that is beside the point of this debate. The government of Israel and the parents of the students TRUST the teachers to do what is right. Can you IMAGINE!? Armed citizens that are TRUSTED by their government?! How UNCOUTH!
Big-city Americans, raised on a steady diet of "trust-us-we'll-protect-you-because-you're-incapable-of-protecting-yourselves-and-making-the-right-decisions-in-a-crisis-situation" government and mass media propaganda, can't imagine anything similar working in the United States. These same Americans would state, with great conviction, that only highly-trained personnel, such as the police, are fit to respond with armed force in a crisis situation.
The fly-in-the-buttermilk for that argument is that the police are, themselves, nothing more than armed civilians. If they can successfully complete training that prepares them to respons to danger, why can't teachers? If some highly-trained teachers were allowed to do double duty as armed guards, there would be little need to go to the added expense of hiring armed guards.
You can cry and whine about the "necessity" of disarming the populous until the cows come home, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon. Reality is here and now. What are we going to do in the meantime. No more hysterics, please. If you have another solution, I'm willing to hear it.
Secondly, American schools are far too large for the staff and administration to get a handle on this situation. One of the most common statements to be debated in these situations is usually "Why didn't the staff and administration see this coming? How could they miss the warning signs?"
As if it's possible to do so in an environment where the average student gets lost in the shuffle. When the bell rings ending a class period the average American school fills with the equivalent population of a small town. When you shunt your children into such an environment you largely cede your ability to detect dangerous situations. Crime, drugs, and violence abound because it is impossible, with such a large population of students, to get a handle on them.
The schools have to be broken up. No ifs-ands-or-buts about it. No school should have more than 3 to 4 hundred students in it. In schools of that size, students develop greater rapport with each other and their teachers, criminal activity is easier to detect and thwart, and the learning environment improves.
I don't see to these two suggestions exist, given the current situation.
