Dear North Carolina: Arming teachers with guns is a spectacularly bad idea.

North Carolina is proposing a law to allow teachers to carry guns in school. Here's why that's a horrible idea.

Two bills have been filed in the North Carolina state legislature that would loosen gun restrictions in schools, allow teachers to carry guns, and even pay some teachers more for doing so.

Both of the proposed laws would require training for those who want to carry guns. In the house bill, participating teachers and staff would have to complete 16 hours of active shooter training. The senate bill proposes having select teachers serve as secret "teacher resource officers" who carry firearms. The position would require Basic Law Enforcement Training, after which the teachers would be sworn in as law enforcement officers. It also includes a 5% pay increase.


If teachers were to be armed, they should definitely be trained. But no amount of training makes up for the fact that a loaded gun in a classroom full of children is a recipe for disaster.

Even police officers don't fire accurately in shoot-out situations. What makes us think civilian teachers would fare better?

Police officers and soldiers are trained extensively not only in how to handle firearms, but also in the mental and emotional realities of their jobs. And even then, trained law enforcement only have an 18% accuracy rate in high stress shoot-out situations.

So, the people who are rigorously trained and actively prepared to engage dangerous criminals as their full-time job hit their target in active shooting situations less than one in five times—and they sometimes shoot innocent bystanders. Now imagine the chaotic scene of a school shooting, with terrified children everywhere. Do we really think a teacher with a gun, who just a moment ago was teaching fractions, is going to miraculously turn into a sharpshooting hero?  

Expecting a teacher to be able to shift mental gears from teaching arithmetic to employing tactical active shooter training in a matter of seconds, while also managing a classroom of freaked out children, is expecting too much. How could we possibly think that a teacher—even one trained to fire a gun—could respond accurately and wisely in a shooting situation with a million different variables, and do so without putting students' lives in greater danger?

"Good guys with guns" create confusion for law enforcement in actual shooting situations.

Despite some individual anecdotes, the "good guy with a gun" argument has been debunked many times. According to a 2014 FBI report, active shooters that were stopped by civilians were stopped more often by good guys without guns than with them, and evidence shown that more guns does not equal fewer crimes.  

But aside from that, a "good guy with a gun" in a shooting scenario with a "bad guy with a gun" can cause confusion for law enforcement who show up to stop the bad guy. How do they know which guy-with-a-gun they're looking at?

A school shooting situation is a chaotic, highly intense scene where officers have to make split second decisions. Teachers would not only be putting themselves at greater risk by wielding a gun, but also their students. Kids tend to gravitate toward their trusted adult teacher for protection, which would mean the armed good guy, whom police might mistake for the bad guy, would likely have children around him or her.

Shooting a bad guy is traumatic enough. An officer shooting a child they're trying to save because an armed teacher created more confusion than necessary would be devastating for all involved.

Guns in schools put everyone at greater risk.

I'm a 5'5" woman. An average high schooler could overpower me if they really wanted to, and I wouldn't stand a chance against more than one. If I'm carrying a gun, what's to stop some enraged or deranged students from sneaking up and taking my firearm while I'm writing on the board? Theoretically, they wouldn't know if I was carrying, but young people aren't stupid. If teachers are allowed to carry guns, kids are going to figure out who has them. Guaranteed.

And as a parent, I for damn sure would want to know if my child's teacher was carrying a loaded gun in their classroom. I think it should be every parent's right to know if their child's teacher is armed. How is that information going to be kept secret?

And that's not even getting into the potential for accidents. What if a teacher accidentally leaves their loaded gun in the bathroom, like happened in Pennsylvania and at Stoneman Douglass in Parkland, Florida (of all places, seriously)? What about when an armed teacher or staffer accidentally shoot their guns inside the school, like happened in California and in Virginia last year?

Or what about the gun-carrying teacher who gets pushed to the brink? The teacher who feels threatened by a student, a la "stand your ground" laws, and shoots them in a fit of fear or anger? Students-teacher altercations are not terribly uncommon. Adding loaded guns to the mix? No thank you.

Teachers should be focused on teaching, not doing the job of SWAT teams and police officers.

I taught in middle schools and high schools, and it was the hardest job I've ever had. Teaching requires a level of constant focus and care that people don't realize unless they've done it. A teacher's job is to teach—to be a mentor, to share knowledge, to inspire and guide young people—and those skills requires immense dedication and attention. That's what teachers should be focused on, not on making sure they're armed and trained and ready to kill.

Some may believe that simply knowing some teachers may be armed might serve as deterrent. But having actual armed guards at Columbine and Stoneman Douglass high schools didn't deter those shooters. If someone decides to go on a killing rampage, they're not usually worried about dying themselves. It's a suicide mission, and the idea of a teacher with a gun isn't going to stop them.

There are many avenues to explore for keeping our schools safer, but putting loaded guns into our classrooms and training teachers to kill is not one we should be entertaining. The potential risks far outweigh any potential benefits to make it a reasonable option.

More

Disney has come under fire for problematic portrayals of non-white and non-western cultures in many of its older movies. They aren't the only one, of course, but since their movies are an iconic part of most American kids' childhoods, Disney's messaging holds a lot of power.

Fortunately, that power can be used for good, and Disney can serve as an example to other companies if they learn from their mistakes, account for their misdeeds, and do the right thing going forward. Without getting too many hopes up, it appears that the entertainment giant may have actually done just that with the new Frozen II film.

According to NOW Toronto, the producers of Frozen II have entered into a contract with the Sámi people—the Indigenous people of the Scandinavian regions—to ensure that they portray the culture with respect.

RELATED: This fascinating comic explains why we shouldn't use some Native American designs.

Though there was not a direct portrayal of the Sámi in the first Frozen movie, the choral chant that opens the film was inspired by an ancient Sámi vocal tradition. In addition, the clothing worn by Kristoff closely resembled what a Sámi reindeer herder would wear. The inclusion of these elements of Sámi culture with no context or acknowledgement sparked conversations about cultural appropriation and erasure on social media.

Frozen II features Indigenous culture much more directly, and even addressed the issue of Indigenous erasure. Filmmakers Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck, along with producer Peter Del Vecho, consulted with experts on how to do that respectfully—the experts, of course, being the Sámi people themselves.

Sámi leaders met with Disney producer Peter Del Vecho in September 2019.Sámediggi Sametinget/Flickr

The Sámi parliaments of Norway, Sweden and Finland, and the non-governmental Saami Council reached out to the filmmakers when they found out their culture would be highlighted in the film. They formed a Sámi expert advisory group, called Verddet, to assist filmmakers in with how to accurately and respectfully portray Sámi culture, history, and society.

In a contract signed by Walt Disney Animation Studios and Sámi leaders, the Sámi stated their position that "their collective and individual culture, including aesthetic elements, music, language, stories, histories, and other traditional cultural expressions are property that belong to the Sámi," and "that to adequately respect the rights that the Sámi have to and in their culture, it is necessary to ensure sensitivity, allow for free, prior, and informed consent, and ensure that adequate benefit sharing is employed."

RELATED: This aboriginal Australian used kindness and tea to trump the racism he overheard.

Disney agreed to work with the advisory group, to produce a version of Frozen II in one Sámi language, as well as to "pursue cross-learning opportunities" and "arrange for contributions back to the Sámi society."

Anne Lájla Utsi, managing director at the International Sámi Film Institute, was part of the Verddet advisory group. She told NOW, "This is a good example of how a big, international company like Disney acknowledges the fact that we own our own culture and stories. It hasn't happened before."

"Disney's team really wanted to make it right," said Utsi. "They didn't want to make any mistakes or hurt anybody. We felt that they took it seriously. And the film shows that. We in Verddet are truly proud of this collaboration."

Sounds like you've done well this time, Disney. Let's hope such cultural sensitivity and collaboration continues, and that other filmmakers and production companies will follow suit.

popular

Gerrymandering is a funny word, isn't it? Did you know that it's actually a mashup of the name "Gerry" and the word "salamander"? Apparently, in 1812, Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry had a new voting district drawn that seemed to favor his party. On a map, the district looked like a salamander, and a Boston paper published it with the title The GerryMander.

That tidbit of absurdity seems rather tame compared to an entire alphabet made from redrawn voting districts a century later, and yet here we are. God bless America.

Keep Reading Show less
popular
Facebook / Maverick Austin

Your first period is always a weird one. You know it's going to happen eventually, but you're not always expecting it. One day, everything is normal, then BAM. Puberty hits you in a way you can't ignore.

One dad is getting attention for the incredibly supportive way he handled his daughter's first period. "So today I got 'The Call,'" Maverick Austin started out a Facebook post that has now gone viral.

The only thing is, Austin didn't know he got "the call." His 13-year-old thought she pooped her pants. At that age, your body makes no sense whatsoever. It's a miracle every time you even think you know what's going on.

Keep Reading Show less
popular
Wikipedia

Women in country music are fighting to be heard. Literally. A study found that between 2000 and 2018, the amount of country songs on the radio by women had fallen by 66%. In 2018, just 11.3% of country songs on the radio were by women. The statistics don't exist in a vacuum. There are misogynistic attitudes behind them. Anyone remember the time radio consultant Keith Hill compared country radio stations to a salad, saying male artists are the lettuce and women are "the tomatoes of our salad"...? Air play of female country artists fell from 19% of songs on the radio to 10.4% of songs on the radio in the three years after he said that.

Not everyone thinks that women are tomatoes. This year's CMA Awards celebrated women, and Sugarland's Jennifer Nettles saw the opportunity to bring awareness to this issue and "inspire conversation about country music's need to play more women artists on radio and play listings," as Nettles put it on her Instagram. She did it in a uniquely feminine way – by making a fashion statement that also made a statement-statement.

Keep Reading Show less
popular