The classic high school experience has changed drastically from when our parents were children. Instead of just the stress of tests and homework, the modern-day debate of the second amendment demands that students live in constant fear of their very lives. From preschool to college our lives are riddled with shelter-in-place drills and the chance of an intruder, and that terrifies me to no end. 

The only solution to this horrifying problem is to regulate the volume of guns and decrease it immensely. The opposite of a solution would be to arm teachers and increase the amount of these killing machines in the United States. 

First and foremost, background checks aren’t perfect. If we expect our teachers to hold firearms, it would be necessary for them to go through these checks. Even if they pass these checks, there’s no guarantee that they are not potential criminals. 

February 12, 2010, In Huntsville, Alabama, Amy Bishop was informed that she would not be receiving tenure. She snapped and used her gun to kill several of her colleagues. It’s impossible to completely eliminate bad news or mental health issues that a teacher could experience, therefore we can’t rule out completely that a teacher would use their issued guns out of anger instead of to aide the students. 

Though the obvious answer is the safety concerns that would come along with arming teachers, it’s a must to also take into account the feelings and wants of all those in the school setting. 

The teachers involved want to do what their career entails, not that of a police officer or an armed officer on school grounds. They are required to educate and create a welcoming environment and encourage a bond between them and the students. The wedge between a student comfortably learning would be the gun that the supposed “trusted-adult” of the room would hold. It would introduce an uncertainty and weariness that would ruin the purpose of everyday attendance. 

Though some would argue that arming teachers would introduce safety, I would argue the exact opposite. By arming certain or all teachers, they will become the main targets. In more times than not, the shooter was a student that attended the target school. The shooter could note which teachers have guns and try to eliminate them as to lessen the chance of their time being cut short. In most cases, the main goal of the shooter isn’t to survive. It’s to create as much panic and bring as much harm as he/she possibly can. It’s ridiculous if we assume that arming teachers will scare the potential shooter into stopping. They come expecting to either take their own life and take many other lives too. 

To those that wish to to observe problem financially, that also provides benefits by choosing to not arm teachers. The weapons, training, and insurance that would come along with giving teachers guns would be too much for an already under-funded school to handle. 

If we stick to letting the officers who wish to hold a gun and are professionally trained to do so, schools will save money and be secure. As a country, we need to solve this problem quickly by getting rid of guns. If we introduce more guns into our schools, we are begging for more casualties.