The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Teachers and school staff should have guns

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
luckyobserver has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2018 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,406 times Debate No: 114112
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




School shootings have been a disaster in America. They have been happening often. Many lives have been lost due to school shootings. Some children are scared they will be in a school shooting. People have been talking about teachers having guns and protecting their students. The problem is there are negative effects of teachers and school staff having funs. Teachers may shoot their kids or abuse their gun. I will talk more about my reasons in the next arguments.


I would first off like to thank Burst_Blade for offering this debate, and it is something I think is obviously relevant, in consideration of yet another school shooting in Texas just recently. Burst_Blade has not set any major ground rules for this debate such as a debate itinerary, but noting that he's started with his arguments in the first round, I will also do so. I'm looking forward to a great debate!

Let me start by saying this: any reasonable person will agree that school shootings are abhorring and sickening events that our young people have experienced. There is not debate over whether something should be done about it; rather, the debate has always been over what ways we go about preventing mass shootings. Generally, liberals will make arguments ranging from gun bans to gun control; conservatives emphasize the second amendment rights bestowed by the constitution and make the argument that we need less guns in the hands of the wrong people and more guns in the hands of the good people. These are vast generalizations of the arguments presented by the left and right, but for the sake of time they present a clear and general idea of the proposed solutions by each side.

One of the solutions that comes up when speaking about preventing mass shootings, and specifically school shootings, is that we should allow teachers/staff to carry guns. The idea is that in the case of a school shooting, there are teachers and staff that are also armed and prepared to fight back in defense of themselves and their students. In this debate I will be arguing that arming teachers/staff is better than not allowing them to carry guns in school. This is my contention, and it is slightly different from the debate title but I believe it is acceptable and preferred due to detail.

When you think about the concept as to why someone would make the argument that teachers should be allowed to conceal carry, it simply makes logical sense that it could very well be a good thing. The reasoning is clear: if an intruder enters the school with weapons and the intent to harm and kill, if there are responsible teachers that also have guns, they can as a result neutralize the threat that is a school shooter. I personally am not a "shoot first" person, and in many cases I think situations should be resolved in a smooth and diplomatic way as possible-- with the exception of imminent danger as such in a school shooting.

I don't believe there is anything about that simple logic that is flawed, and I believe that if we were to allow teachers/staff to conceal carry, it would act as a deterrent against school shootings overall. It seems after all that most mass shootings happen in "gun-free" zones, schools being one of them. Allow me to give a few examples of instances where a gun carrying citizen actually stopped a bigger tragedy from occurring.

In Chicago, 2015, there was a man who started to fire his gun at a crowd of people, when a carrying Uber driver noticed, got out of his car and shot the original shooter and neutralized the threat. [1]

Colorado, late 2007, a man heads to a church armed with over 1,000 rounds of ammunition [2] prepared to be the perpetrator of yet another mass shooting, killing two young ladies in the parking lot and killing two people in the church. Thanks to a carrying attendee and volunteer security guard (a citizen still, mind you) the perpetrator was shot several times before killing himself, thus preventing any more fatalities [3]

Mississippi, 1997, a young man first stabs his mother to death before heading to his school and opening fire with a rifle, injuring 7 and killing 2 young ladies. One of the assistant principals had gone to his car to retrieve his gun and was able to stop the young man from killing more. [4] He was evidently on his way to the middle school nearby to continue killing even more kids. [5]

For the sake of not going over my character limit I will just stop with those, but the examples continue and range over different times and circumstances. The reality is that the logic is straightforward and proven in time that citizens who carry and are in situations where a malicious person is trying to hurt or kill others, the citizen who carries is generally able to end the threat.

Unfortunately there are not many specific circumstances of teachers pulling out a Glock from their back belt and stopping a mentally deranged student from killing their classmates because schools have been a place where quite frankly, teachers don't have that capability. I've presented these proofs mostly outside of school settings (with the exception of the last one) to show that when it works in other occasions, it would certainly prove to work should we allow teachers/staff to conceal carry for the protection of their students.






Debate Round No. 1


You do make a really good point. While teachers having guns can protect students, it can also harm students. There have been situations where teachers have injured students by accidentally firing the gun. If teachers are not armed with guns, any accidental injuries or deaths could be prevented.

A teacher in a California school accidentally fired a gun and injured one student during a public safety lesson. If he didn't have a gun, the injury could have been prevented. The student could have died if the gun hit another part of the student's body or the gun was more powerful.

There have also been incidents where children have stolen guns from officers. Fortunately, no one was injured in the incidents I've found, but the children could have injured or killed some people. It's safe to not arm teachers with guns because children could steal their guns. A child could get the keys or the code to the locked vault with the gun. A child could be sneaky and steal a gun from the teacher. While this is unlikely, it is still possible.

Students might be scared going into classrooms knowing their teachers have guns. They will be worried that the teacher will fire the gun. This can affect the child's learning ability. Students might be more comfortable going into classrooms that don't have an armed teacher.

A teacher could have a mental health problem. It could lead to the teacher using the gun on the students. A teacher could get very mad at her students and unable to control the anger. In response, the teacher could pull out the gun and fire it. If teachers do not have guns, they could not do this.

If teachers were to have guns, they would not be trained. They would have to train, which may cost money. Buyings guns for the teachers will cost the school more money. It will also add more responsibilities and work for the teachers and staff.

I think that the only people allowed to be armed in schools are officers who work well with guns and have a lot of experience. The officers have to be trusted and have no record of injuring an innocent person. If only officers have guns, the chance of them firing one accidentally or intentionally at a student or the chance of a child stealing a gun is very unlikely.

If a school cannot get security guards, there are ways they can protect their students. One way is practicing lockdown drills. Lockdown drills should be performed often. It will help if they are performed like there is a real shooting. The students should learn how to fight the intruder if he/she enters the building. Another way is installing metal detectors that can detect if there is an illegal item. Security cameras are an important thing to install. They can track the intruder and show where the intruder is. At my school if there is no staff member watching the doors, then the door is locked. The person has to press a button that tells the office he/she wants to enter. If the office recognized the person as a student, parent, guardian, tutor, or other staff member then they will be let in. If there is a stranger and they find the stranger to be dangerous, they may keep the doors locked and put the school on lockdown. Schools could install a system like this to keep the school safer. We should acknowledge the safer ways to protect a school.


I'm glad you're in for this debate!

I've been without an internet connection and I didn't realize the time for response was so short! I'm currently typing my rebuttals in a 25 minute timeframe, so bear with me!

In response to your arguments, I want to make clear that there is not a fail-proof solution to this issue. I wish along with everyone else that there was a solution that could instantly prevent mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, from ever happening again. If I knew for a fact that some other solution would better prevent mass shootings without the same amount of ways it could fail, I would easily go with that. However, this is the reality that I will accept: there are still risks involved with arming teachers. I am willing to concede that there would be possible ways to tragedy to still occur in rare instances, just as other methods could also end up falling through.

There are a plethora of conceivable ways that a person could end up outsmarting systems involving metal detectors, security cameras, and locked doors. The reality is that metal detectors haven't even been proven to reduce violent tendencies and events in students, and could even make things worse. [1] The key to finding the best solution to this issue is to follow the proposed solution with the best chance of possible outcomes and the least likelihood of negative repercussions. The reality is that allowing teachers to conceal carry is precisely that solution in comparison to the lack of efficacy shown by other methods.

And let's be clear about something. First, I do not believe that all teachers should be forced to carry a gun in the classroom, and I can most definitely understand why some would have reservations about doing so. Second, those teachers who would decide that they would like to carry a gun in school for the protection of others would have to be trained and screened in order to do so. This training would significantly minimize the risk of stupid mistakes being made like accidental discharge and stolen weapons. In my opinion, I think this 1/2 method should be practiced with all citizens who wish to carry a gun, and I believe in both cases it would prove to be beneficial.

Regardless, my main response to you is that I agree there remains the possibility of negative repercussions, but the positive outcome far outweighs the former. This cannot be said about other mainstream solutions, including metal detectors and even a school resource officer (Parkland, for example). [2]

Things in societies change, and at the moment I can easily understand that there would be some that would be uncomfortable carrying as teachers and being in a class with someone who carries; yet as the time goes on and these methods prove to work, students and teachers will become more comfortable.

And to be frank, those teachers who argue that they are not police officers or first responders are making selfish statements. In those situations where an active shooter has entered the building, there is a collective responsibility of everyone to protect and help each other by whatever means necessary-- and as teachers, leaders of these students, it should be expected for them to be at an even higher standard. But as I said, I can understand, but I don't agree.


Debate Round No. 2


Most school shooters have difficult losses or failure. The Parkland shooter's adoptive mother died from pneumonia. It was a difficult time for him to see that happen. He witnessed his father die from a heart attack at age 5. When students are dealing with this, we should know that they are experiencing it. Students need help and sympathy to feel better after a tragedy or their anger might get out of control. It's important to know the concerns. If we don't know about it or don't help, the person might start a shooting. Knowing about hard lives and helping people cope with them might prevent school shootings.

Many attackers did not experience hard losses, but they were bullied. If a student gets bullied for a long time, the student might hate his/her classmates and school. If a student getting bullied got access to a gun, he/she might shoot the school. Their anger would be severe. It's important that we stop bullying and help people getting bullied.

Though metal detectors are not the best thing to use in schools, there are other ways to protect the school.

If not all teachers carry a gun, there might be a chance where the shooter enters the classroom that has an unarmed teacher. It's rare as the school might be put on lockdown before and there might be other armed people. I think it would mainly happen when the shooter is entering the school to target the teacher rather than shooting everyone he/she sees at the school. It is rare for that to happen, but it can happen.

Training teachers would take a lot of time. I don't know how we would screen them. Teachers can't become teachers with a criminal record. At least that's what I'm sure about. In my opinion, training would only significantly decrease the chance of a teacher accidentally firing the gun or getting it stolen. It might not help to significantly decrease the chance of the teacher getting mad or having mental issues and shooting the gun. A teacher who plans to kill his/her students would probably pass the test.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Murkyboi 3 years ago
Well a teacher WITH A GUN had accidentally injured a few student in the classroom with said gun.
Posted by coachpenny 3 years ago
Here are some assumptions regarding this topic:
Teachers will not be properly trained, a student could access the gun, how are the teachers chosen to carry a gun, may not prevent outside attacks - people that attack schools or anyone in general don't care about their own well being, who will pay for the guns and training, do guns equal safety, accidents could happen
Posted by Tuddenmyham 3 years ago
I agree I wanted to add my opinion on here against but when I so you were against I didn't want to be pro the subject.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.