The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
2 Points

Should Teachers be armed in the classroom?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 600 times Debate No: 74740
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I am hoping for a good debate over this resolution

Round 1 Aceeptence only


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Guns are dangerous. Some people might think it"s safe to have one but in my opinion guns are powerful and there is many other ways to have a classroom safe. Technology each time gets better and better. Scientist can consider inventing either doors that don"t permit a person to enter the building with an ID card, or doors that can sense a gun enter the classroom. Maybe schools with more securities or police officers. There is many things that can replace guns in schools in my opinion. Teacher (No offense) might feel in power and go crazy you never know I've even heard cases of rape or other adults in schools where the teachers hits on the kid and goes to prison. Other cases I've heard is kids being hit by teachers I mean how is a gun going to make the school a better place how is a gun going to protect children. There is a big probability for a student to easily think that a gun is a toy and start easily shooting at classmates. A student might have access of the weapon and pretend to be in a video game.
Okay let's just say that teachers actually go through training. What happens if the district asks for teacher to hide their guns? Teachers have to have the weapons in the classrooms closet reason being to for students to not be near nor have access to the weapon. The scenario would be that the "Phsyco" enters the classroom starts shooting in the class room. What is the teacher going to say? "Wait Mr. Stranger with a gun let met my gun and fight , since I'm certified you know?" getting the weapon and preparing a gun to shoot is a process of about I want to say 30 seconds the most and that is why I disagree with weapons being in a classroom.



1.) School mass shootings are happening every year. Teachers and students were mostly defenseless whenever a mass shooting occurs. We can solve this problem by allowing teachers to be armed. Arming teachers will lessen the casualties whenever a mass shooting occurs by having an epic shoot out with the shooter. The shooter will have to focus on the teachers shooting at him, and this will give students and unarmed staff time to escape. A bonus would be if the teacher was able to kill/disarm the mass shooter

2.) For safety, the gun should be kept in a secure safe somewhere secret in the classroom where the students can't reach/know about it. In fact, arming teachers should be kept a secret from students so students won't plan on playing or use it.

3.) Guns, specifically pistols, are way more available and cheaper than gun detectors and cops guarding the school. Simple weapon detectors costs around $150 [1]. Cheap handguns cost around $100-$120. An example would be the cobra [2].


1.) Metal detectors won't do anything. When a student will do a school shootout, a gun detector won't stop him. He won't care if the gun detector's alarms will go off and he won't care if he gets in to trouble. What he will care about is his kill count before they usually kill themselves,

2.) If a teacher will abuse his gun, another teacher can stop him. Students mostly do the mass shootings anyway, not teachers. The only scandalous things teachers mostly do nowadays are hitting students, or having an sex with them.

3.) Doors that only permit people with ID is hardly going to help. Students mostly do mass shootings anyway, so they will obviously have an ID. If its a stranger, then he can easily mug/steal an ID from someone else.



Debate Round No. 2


New argument

C1. Children could be caught in the crossfire

We need to remember that we"re most likely dealing with threats to young people by other young people here. If teachers were granted the right of "shoot to kill," as the mechanism would imply, of anyone they found threatening, the consequences to completely innocent people in a crossfire, or merely troubled youngsters that could be rehabilitated if simply subdued, could be tragic and fatal. Ultimately, teachers are not police officers and are thus not equipped to take out an armed criminal in the same way.

C2. How could armed teachers be regulated?

If teachers can bear arms, then what"s to stop other people in the school environment in contact with children, such as janitors, from demanding they should too, or even getting hold of them illicitly? Many of them won"t have been certified or checked, and as such there is no guarantee that the system of only allowing teaching staff to carry them could be fully regulated. This is particularly the case if janitors, cafeteria workers or cleaning staff have private gun licences of their own. The result is that children could be in an environment where those not licensed to carry arms around them would have greater opportunities to do so, thereby increasing the threat to children. It would be difficult to monitor which staff are bringing guns into school without a lot of investment in searches and detectors " money that could have paid for professional security. It is thus arguable that the proposition"s mechanism does not stand.


The logical fallacy here is the assumption that teachers will always have pupils" best interests at heart. There"s little to stop children from becoming extremely vulnerable if they are under the supervision of someone who could turn on them. Gun attacks like Columbine and Virginia Tech are often by people whose potential for violence was not spotted by anyone until it was too late. People in positions of authority are not always reliable or rational, and no amount of safety checks can guarantee that some teachers will not abuse the powers they have. This measure would simply increase the potential threat from those who have been authorised to carry guns in schools.

This is why we shouldn't have guns in schools.

Thank you opponent for the debate.


Its unfair that Con added new arguments on the last round since if I will add new arguments in the last round too, then Con won't be able to refute me.

Anyway, on to the Rebuttals.


C1.) Children will less likely be caught in a crossfire since they will mostly run away from the shooting or hide. It is also better that to be caught in a crossfire then being massacred. At least you will have a chance to survive being in a crossfire then being is a massacred defenseless. Besides, the only time teachers are supposed to use guns is during a school shooting. There is no other reason for them to use their guns beside that. Also, it is hard to subdue someone shooting at you. Even police prefer to shoot someone shooting at them first rather than trying to find ways to handcuff them.

C2.) Why not? Let them have guns if they have licenses. The school will obviously have the records of their teachers and staff members, so it will be easy to know who is allowed to carry a gun. Also, the school should be the one providing the guns, not the staff. It is up to the school if they want to allow other staff members to have access to the guns in school. If the school says no, then no. It is unlikely that staff members will riot just to have access to guns in school to.

R1.) There is no logical fallacy. I never assumed that teachers will always have the pupils' best interests at heart. I evenly stated that if they abuse their gun privilege, then other teachers can stop them. You haven't provided evidence that these teachers will go power hungry. Teachers don't even need guns to abuse their powers. Students are already following them around since they are already in authority. There are already a lot of cases about teachers abusing their students. Adding guns is no different. A student can report him, and/or another teacher can stop him.

The thing with the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres, is that the perpetrators of both the massacres came to school with guns out and ready to shoot already.

"When the cafeteria bombs failed to explode, Harris and Klebold convened and walked toward the school. Both armed, they climbed to the top of the outdoor West Entrance steps, placing them on a level with the athletic fields west of the building and the library inside the West Entrance, directly above the cafeteria. " [1]

Clearly shows that the two boys had their guns out, therefore, making gun detectors, etc. Useless.

Virginia Tech

"Cho was seen near the entrance to West Ambler Johnston Hall, a co-ed residence hall that housed 895 students,[18] at about 6:47 a.m.EDT.Normally, the hall was accessible only to its residents via magnetic key cards before 10:00 a.m.; Cho's student mailbox was in the lobby of the building, so he had a pass card allowing access after 7:30 a.m., but it is unclear how he gained earlier entrance to the building.

Cho shot his first victims in West Ambler Johnston Hall. At around 7:15 a.m., Cho entered the room which freshman Emily J. Hilscher shared with another student. Hilscher, a 19-year-old from Woodville, Virginia, was fatally wounded..." [2]

Not only was it clear that Cho was already ready to shoot, making gun detectors useless, but also shows that doors that only allow access to people with ID is useless.

What I am trying to say is we can't prevent these things from happening, however, we can minimize the loss by arming teachers, who could stop these shooters.


I fully rebutted Con's arguments and his rebuttals. I provided sources, he does not. He made new arguments in the last round. This is unethical, since it would be unfair for him if I post new arguments too, that he cannot refute. Arming teachers is a good idea, especially in an event of a school shooting.

Now I thank my opponent for the debate.

Vote Pro



Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only side to use sources