Arming Teachers to Stop Mass Shootings, Florida Says Yes
Anti-gun liberals are stuck on stupid when it comes to protecting students in so-called “gun-free zones,” where virtually every mass shooting occurs in the United States. They don’t even like armed guards in schools, because it might upset the children – never mind the “children” doing the shooting are at or near full adulthood. Most recently, two youths, one an adult and another an older teen, shot eight, at least one of whom died, at a Colorado school.
The school is a designated gun-free zone, yet, once again, those intent on causing harm refused to leave their firearms at home. No armed security guards were in place. As a gun-free zone, even teachers are banned from carrying concealed to protect themselves and students against mass-casualty attacks. More students were shot and at least one killed due to an inability to rapidly respond to and, preferably, thwart such attacks before they even begin. But, that requires armed individuals within the school walls, and gun-free zones don’t allow that in Colorado.
In Florida, though, that likely soon will not be the case. State lawmakers there recently voted to enable teachers to arm themselves and do more than lock doors and throw things at armed assailants intent in mass murder. Liberals, of course, are appalled and fighting the sensible measure, and are trying hard to get Gov. Ron DeSantis to veto the measure, which he is expected to sign into law.
The measure also includes expanded mental health services, enhancing the sharing of information regarding students with behavioral issues and better reporting of incidents that threaten school safety. In other words – identifying potentially troublesome students and acting accordingly, instead of treating everyone with kid gloves.
The opposition includes elements of blatant racism. During the Florida House debate, one lawmaker, Rep. Shevrin Jones, a black Democrat, failed to get two restrictive amendments passed. Those would have required any teacher who volunteered for the expanded guardianship program to undergo “implicit bias” training. Another would have eliminated self-defense claims by teachers who accidentally shoot an innocent student during an active shooter incident.
The implicit bias training supposedly trains people to be more aware of prejudicial stereotypes that might subconsciously impact a sudden decision, such as who might be a threat during a school shooting. Jones blatantly played the race card, suggesting black students in particular would become targets of teachers.
Jones even borrowed some Black Lives Matter rhetoric, saying: “We are talking about black boys and girls who are getting murdered by police officers! There are bad police officers, and there are bad teachers!” He suggested a black student with dreadlocks would be considered a threat by teachers and eat a bullet.
Correlating police shootings that occur outside of schools with potential for teachers committing “murder” within school walls due to the color of a student’s skin or the style of his or her hair is incredibly prejudicial. So is assuming anytime a police officer shoots someone, it is “murder.” Certainly, police officers do make mistakes, and a few of them actually have committed murder. But those are outlier events and not the norm in our society.
If anything, it appears Rep. Jones should undergo “Implicit bias” training. His obvious biases clearly are affecting his critical-thinking skills, as affirmed by his inane opposition to enabling teachers to arm themselves and protect students during active shooter situations. A biased, one-sided New York Times article played up Rep. Jones’ opposition to the likely new law that would arm Florida teachers and provide more effective rapid response to active shooter situations in schools. The article specifically mentions black students in the headline and asks if they will “pay the price” by arming teachers.
Rep. Jones and the Times clearly illustrate liberals will stoop to using race-baiting tactics with no substance to oppose sensible solutions to violence targeting schools. Florida’s law would not require teachers to arm themselves, nor would it require any school districts to allow teachers to arm themselves. It simply enables local school boards to decide whether or not they want to participate in the School Guardianship Program. Many do not and will continue to do so.
Yet, simply giving local units the choice to enable teachers to become part of a rapid response to active shooter situations, somehow, amounts to racial bias and potential murder of black students, according to at least some anti-gun liberals. Instead, they prefer students remain vulnerable to mass shooting incidents. After all, armed teachers successfully defending students would not play well when trying to erode Second Amendment rights.