Allowing teachers to conceal-carry in the classroom may provide a ‘bandaid’ against some threats to students. However, the larger danger comes from the content of a public school education, the curriculum and character communicated by the teachers. How can we re-arm teachers to deliver a wholesome, American education?
Alfonzo Rachel and Bill Whittle create two new episodes of The Virtue Signal each week to analyze news of the day in the context of enduring morality and principles. Our Members fund this enterprise. When you join, you unlock access to backstage content, Member-written blog, forums and comments. Join now for as little as $9.95/month — with a full, rapid and cheerful refund if you don’t love your new conservative friends in 30 days. Just tap the big green button above.
12 replies on “Re-Arming Teachers: Protecting Children Goes Beyond Concealed-Carry to Curriculum and Character”
Guys, it would be great if, at the end of these, you would offer up summary bullet points of where we need to go next in order to fix our problems.
So, you dwell a lot on masculinity and the role of women in our society. While I agree with much of what you say, I nonetheless disagree with so of it. I, personally, don’t mind at all having women in places of power so long as they exert themselves intellectually rather than emotionally. More specifically, use common sense and wisdom. Same for men. My masculinity has never been threatened by women.
Over the long haul, I agree with you both. We need to change the culture. The societal dynamic. But what are we to do for the short term? Bill, you mentioned several interventions by armed Americans. Is that our short term solution? Part of it (e.g. eliminate Gun Free Zones and Active Shooter training in our schools, etc.)?
“The breakdown of the family started in school…” OR, the perversion of our educational system is simply one of the many inevitable consequences of the breakdown of the family. We are completely agreed that the increase in violence is rooted in the breakdown of the family, and arming the teachers is slightly like putting an icepack on the thermometer.
David Barton with Wallbuilders.com has a set of charts of social indicators in the US–things that we do not want to see in society. It is things like drug use, alcoholism, unwed pregnancy, divorce, crimes of all sorts, and on and on. The levels of those aberrations are very low–little blips up and down but nothing alarming year by year. And then come 1962 and 1963, and the levels start shooting upwards with only an occasional dip downward. Anyone looking at those charts would say, “What on earth happened in the US in 1962 and 1963?!” It is simple to find out what happened. In those two years the Supreme Court handed down decisions to forbid Bible reading and prayer in the public schools.
And that explains it all. The government–that is to say the people–of the United States told God to move along and get out of the way. It was to say that He was no longer welcome in the public life of this country. God is a gentleman–He does not force Himself on anyone. So He let this country have its way. And we are paying for that in greater and greater magnitude till we now find ourselves in this country that is unrecognizable from the days when He was not only welcome here–He was recognized as the One in Whom we live and move and have our being.
The ONLY solution is to return to HIM.
Oh am I just about to touch the third rail and suffer the wrath, but I’ve listened to this episode and found more than one topic missing, but I’ll focus on one topic.
Before I do, I have to admit that I was raised by a good man, good husband, excellent Dad, great provider and a shining example of the Greatest Generation, ANNNNNNDD raised by a good caring woman, who was a great wife, excellent Mom who cooked, cleaned, made lunches got me to school each day, and together they told me and my siblings No (and why ) more often than we’d wanted. While Dad worked long hours in agribusiness, Mom was there, present, and caring for us. When Dad wasn’t working, he was teaching things like gardening, caring for a house, woodworking, how to handle a shotgun properly, how to hunt, and firearm safety. I had the benefit of great parents. My immediate friends did too.
Now for the 3rd rail. Gaming. In particular, 1st person shooters. Before I rant, I also have to admit that when it came out, long long ago, Wolfenstein was the height of computer fun, shooting Nazi’s and running through a castle, shooting more and more Nazis. Making piles and piles of dead Nazis…. Great fun. Great drama and totally immersive. Looking back on it, how unrealistic it was, with pixelated graphics and 8 bit blood. But even then, I knew it was a game, and I would and could not pick up a shot gun and just plow through real people in the mall. Why? Perhaps being taught right from wrong at an early age by both my parents had a LOT to do with that.
Today’s adolescents, a small few who’ve been beaten and badgered by so many of societal problems mentioned in this episode, may fall back to a make believe world, and an amazingly realistic world of gaming and 1st person shooters. Killing in a realistic and immersive manner, images that look so realistic, realistic humans, men, women, gunned down at your pleasure. For fun. Then, when slighted, the same adolescents can’t or won’t discern between fantasy and reality, get the weapons legally or illegally, and head down to the mall or the school and create their mayhem. More bodies, more points.
After the Mall Shooting or Uvalde, either in a Right Angle or Backstage segment, one of the R/A trio had asked how many of these mass murderers were members of the NRA? The consensus seemed to come up with the number zero. I’m only asking a question, and i thought asking the question was still ok in this country, but how many of these school, mall, teenage shooters were hard core gamers? Like I said, just asking.
3rd rail be dammed.
Just an opinion; I have no data. Number of hard core gamers who become mass shooters is not zero. However, the percentage that are is probably close to zero.
Harry, thanks for that.
Mayhaps I wasn’t completely clear in my comment to the last episode addressing armed teachers either.
There’s a difference between arming someone and simply promoting and allowing everyone their Second Amendment right without infringement. Teachers are American citizens too, teachers have the same rights as anyone else. A teacher who chooses to go armed for his own defense and the defense of others should not be hindered.
“Arming teachers” semantically means issuing arms to teachers. Military forces and police actuals are armed by the State. I do not want the State arming teachers under any circumstances.
OK, now that’s been cleared up …
On the broader question of arms, I think everyone should be allowed under law to go armed anywhere they choose. Your right to Freedom of Religion is not restricted solely to the interior of houses of worship. Your Constitutional Rights do not evaporate depending on what ground you happen to be standing on at the time.
Now I’m going to wax a bit controversial …
I think everyone who chooses to arm himself or herself in any manner should be permitted to do so regardless of any other circumstances. Full stop. I think that a blue haired granny or a convicted felon (who has served his time and is off parole thereby paying his debt to society) and anything in between those two extremes should be allowed to go armed anywhere they want to … On the ground. Obviously aircraft in flight are particularly susceptible to catastrophic damage from weapons fire so edged weapons would be OK but firearms would require you to check your ammo and mags and pick them up when you’re back on solid ground.
I don’t want to get in the weeds too far on particulars, I want to talk about principles. So people skilled in the use of edged weapons should be able to carry them anywhere, even the very few specific circumstances where a firearm of any sort presents an unacceptable hazard to everyone. Carrying a gun on an aircraft is one of those scenarios because having a handgun and ammo can be as devastating as having a bomb when it comes to aircraft.
That said, why do I think convicted felons should be allowed to carry guns the same as everyone else? Because of a thing called “culling”. If everyone is armed then those who misuse that right won’t live very long. If you are antisocial enough to misuse a firearm then someone (and probably several someones) with a firearm can put you down for good.
In the scenario I’m postulating all misuse of firearms ends with the miscreant dead at the first instance where they do that. That person no longer remains a threat to society and tremendous public expense in court and incarceration costs are nullified.
If you pick up a gun to kill other people unjustly, whether you succeed or not, you are a murderer and deserve death. Allowing such a person to run rampant with arms in open society without fear of swift and certain death is one of the big problems we as a people are facing today.
One of many attitudes I adopted from my favorite author, Robert Anson Heinlein is summed up in this famous quote —
“Well, in the first place an armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
When Heinlein penned those words he was not talking about what I’m addressing but my gist is there too. His context was a futuristic scenario where men were either quick or they were dead. I am not proposing a code duello as Heinlein was writing about. Heinlein after all was writing an idealized, entertaining fiction. There’s nothing fictional about a real gunfight.
If everyone who chooses to is armed anytime and anyplace they choose, those among us who do not act responsibly with deadly force will be culled from our society in very short order. I want a criminal to have a weapon so if he gives me just reason I can justifiably shoot his sorry ass and terminate the liability he poses to our society. If someone has paid his debt to society in full and learns to be a responsible person with a weapon that’s a plus for all of us. If he does not then culling him is the surest way to deal with his antisocial behavior. It’s a self correcting problem.
This gets directly back to what Bill is talking about. It does so in the most direct, certain manner possible. The result on our society is you either behave yourself or you are no longer a problem. This might seem a bit cold to some but I don’t see it that way. I think leaving human shaped animals to continue inflicting damage on innocent people and degrading our social mores is what’s calculatingly cold and repulsive.
Low men (and women, looking at you Nancy Pelosi) of grievous moral lack do not want those who deserve it to pay for their offenses and do everything they can to shield such animals from their just deserts in their own, low minded quest for political power.
Letting everyone have a gun who chooses, anywhere and anytime they choose to be armed, solves this problem in short order.
Firearms are the great equalizer of human beings. Firearms bestow an equality not achievable in any other way. A blue haired 90 year old, 100 lb. armed grandma is the match for a 25 year old 250 lb. linebacker. If Leftists really want equality for everyone …
I’m reminded of a poem I learned in the Marine Corps regarding the .45 service automatic —
The lusty gun, the trusty gun,
The weapon democratic.
Which by it’s might makes men one height,
The government automatic.
Teachers preach the animalization of society. When we are reduced to simple biology, you are left with nothing but nihilism. So why not shoot children? Nothing matters but the self, and when you realize that the collection of cells that people are, the self doesn’t matter either. No soul, no hope, no consequences.
Not all teachers are like those pink-haired nutjobs seeking Twitter followers. Many are like the ones we had decades ago; however, the system has hamstrung their collective ability to accomplish the goals of education. We must be willing to join the “crusade” to combat the sinful nature of humanity. If we are unwilling, then we will become fodder for the Beast.
I must wholeheartedly disagree with the assertion that arming teachers is not a solution. Actually, it is one of many solutions that must be applied in association with each other. The arms are tools for a defensive posture that meets the short term needs of defending children in a hostile society. There are countless other aspects of such a defense-in-depth approach, including eliminating anti-American indoctrination in the classrooms, punishing those who promote such propaganda, locking up mental defectives like the Uvalde shooter before they have an opportunity to shoot (apparently signals were known beforehand),, punishing LEOs who fail to act in a timely fashion to defend our children, punish LEOs who actively prevent parents from protecting their own children (as in Uvalde), etc…. The punsishments are reactive, but they are intended to prevent future bad outcomes.
Either such defense-in-depth approaches are implemented (including armed teachers) or parents’ only other option is to remove their children from these public schools … we all know that will not happen.