Mike Stocker/South Florida Sun-Sentinel/Associated Press
I showed my high school students how to use my Army-issued tourniquet last week in case there is a shooting at our school. I was motivated to do so by the Tactical Casualty Combat Care training I recently received as an Army Reservist.
I was preparing lesson plans for junior English when the alert hit my phone – a report that the Department of Education is weighing a plan to allow schools to use taxpayer money to buy guns for teachers. It’s a bold proposal: lawmakers in Congress have worked to ensure education dollars are not used for guns, and the school safety bill passed in March specifically stipulated that the money could not to be used to buy weapons. This move to arm teachers with federal money — led by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos —would circumvent that Congressional mandate, by pulling money from a different pool, one that’s supposed to be used to “improve students’ academic achievement.”
At a shooting range near Daytona Beach Wednesday, a group of veterans and ex-cops stood in a line and took aim, firing rounds into paper targets while instructors walked between them and offered tips. Some missed, but most made their mark.
Editor’s note: Since the school shooting that killed 17 students and teachers two weeks ago in Parkland, Florida, a debate has erupted over whether to arm teachers and other staffers in schools to prevent future tragedies. Plenty of military veterans have weighed in on both sides, but few voices in the mainstream media have thought through what such a system would really look like. Here is one quick perspective on that, from a former Army officer.
In the aftermath of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre in Parkland, Florida, President Donald Trump offered a simple solution to end the United States’ sad tradition of school shootings: Arm teachers with “military or special training experience” against potential gunmen.