On Thursday, February 22, Donald Trump voiced support for a revolutionary plan to rid American schools of further school shootings. In typical fashion, the President recommended a solution that was so simple it’s almost preposterous that people didn’t think of it beforehand.
The answer to school shootings? Give teachers guns. See? Preposterous.
In spite of its undeniable brilliance, the President’s response to school shootings encountered immediate backlash as columnists, journalists, and thousands of everyday citizens rushed to point out the perceived flaws in Trump’s plan. Fortunately, the Prez’s initial NRA-supported plan was (almost) idiot-proof.
Speaking on the topic, Trump reportedly told White House staff, “I don’t want teachers to have guns, I want certain highly adept people, people that understand weaponry, guns — if they really have that aptitude.”
In other words, the President didn’t suggest arming teachers; he just wanted to put guns in teacher’s hands.
Under the President’s sage strategy, school defense would mostly be left to qualified professionals. You know, like “qualified” professional Scot Peterson, the deputy who failed to run into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School when a gunman opened fire, killing 17 people and injuring 16 others.
As tends to be the case, the lying mainstream media (read: CNN) proclaimed that Trump wanted to arm a bunch of teachers. The President took offense to that outright fabrication, and because the President apparently has nothing better to do than respond to reports of his actual behavior, Trump took to Twitter to set the record straight.
I never said “give teachers guns” like was stated on Fake News @CNN & @NBC. What I said was to look at the possibility of giving “concealed guns to gun adept teachers with military or special training experience – only the best. 20% of teachers, a lot, would now be able to
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 22, 2018
Fake news had the whole thing wrong. Trump didn’t want to arm a whole bunch of teachers. He just wanted to arm 20 percent of teachers across the country, which amounts to about three-quarters of a million new guns entering circulation.
Per the President’s official tweet, though, these 700,000 new weapons would only be given to the twenty percent of qualified professionals who were trained in law enforcement or military tactics. According to the most recent stats, veterans make up about half a percent of the teaching population (at best).
Not to fear, however, because, on Monday, February 26, Trump clarified that he wanted to arm people with “natural talent, like hitting a baseball, or hitting a golf ball, or putting.”
The other nineteen and a half percent of “qualified” teachers must hone their natural ability by playing a lot of paintball on the weekends.
Some people balked at the President’s plan based solely on the price alone. The most trusted sidearms in United States law enforcement today are famous names like the Glock 19, and the Smith & Wesson M&P. These school shooting suppressors start at around $500 (even before you get to the actual suppressors — a must-have accessory for gun-toting librarians). Of course, the world’s biggest gun manufacturers wouldn’t charge state governments full price. After all, putting handguns in school is basically altruism.
If a major manufacturer cut a deal with schools to sell them guns for half-off, the whole plan would only cost about $175 million to arm all the capable teachers in the United States. Okay, it might cost just a little bit more since the President is keen on making sure those educators with guns get annual bonuses for packing heat.
In Oklahoma, you can make more money working at a gas station than you can with a teaching degree. Until March of 2018, West Virginia had teachers making so little money they had to apply for food stamps to make ends meet. But sure, states are totally going to shell out more money for teachers to keep guns on their person in the event of a tragedy.
When it comes right down to it, it seems rude for teachers to ask for more money in any context. We’ve only devalued the teaching profession as a whole while tasking modern educators with searching for signs of drug abuse, bullying, and a volatile home life in classes that are underfunded and overcrowded.
How dare these pampered govvies balk at one more teensy little potentially life-threatening duty on top of teaching history to a group of kids who are raised to believe that learning stuff is pointless when Google knows all the answers.
The whole “guns in schools” plan has already been implemented to great effect in some schools in Ohio and Texas. Program participant and superintendent of Sidney City Schools John Scheu praised the program, saying, “We can’t stop an active shooter, but we can minimize the carnage.”
Now, that kind of effusive praise sounds like the beginning of the end of school shootings, doesn’t it?
Trump’s progressive revolution isn’t being taken to heart by some misguided people. Educator Jesse Wasmer foolishly believes that the solution to school violence isn’t more guns, it’s more understanding.
“I think as educators we’re trained to nurture kids and foster kids, and our first instinct is to not shoot or harm them,” Wasmer said. “What we need is more caring adults in these kids’ lives, not more guns.”
Wasmer’s thoughts are quickly dismissed, however, since his only understanding of school violence comes from his time as a teacher in Baltimore County Schools. There was also the day he disarmed an active shooter bare-handed, saving potentially dozens of lives, but that’s not really relevant to the topic at hand.
For the most part, the argument against arming teachers is, ahem, bulletproof. The only accusations are coming from those who can’t see that there are tons of qualified weekend warriors waiting to get some guns mixed in with their day jobs and make this entirely cost-effective and not potentially disastrous plan a reality.