Should teachers carry guns?

Students will view the possibility of violence as a normal part of life

Question: Should teachers carry guns?
Position1 of 2›: No, teachers should not carry guns
Argument‹2 of 5›: Students will view the possibility of violence as a normal part of life

The presence of guns at school will signal to students that being on constant alert for an attack at school is normal. Having guns at school normalizes violence and the possibility of violence.

The argument

School teachers aim to foster love and passion for learning in the students. Arming them will introduce the idea of threat and fear in school life. Rather than creating a sense of security and safety, guns in school will not just intimidate probable shooters, but also the students. Students deserve to feel safe in classrooms, and arming teachers negates that. Schools should act as safe havens, not potential warzones.

Premises

[P1]Teachers exist to foster a love of learning, but arming them introduces threat and fear into school life. [P2] Guns in classrooms would intimidate students as well as potential shooters, turning a place that should be a safe haven into a potential warzone. [C] Therefore, because students would come to see the possibility of violence as normal, teachers should not carry guns.

Counter-arguments

Students of campuses within CISD (Claude Independent School District) in Texas, which implemented its staff’s concealed gun plan in 2016, reportedly feel safer on campus knowing their staff is armed and ready to act. They believe that guns in the right hands-on campus make for a more safe and relaxed school environment.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise asserts rather than shows that arming staff introduces fear; the counter reports students in a district that adopted such a policy describing the opposite effect, and the argument offers no evidence about how students actually respond. [Rejecting P2] Even granting that guns in classrooms unsettle students, that is a claim about discomfort rather than about coming to see violence as normal, which is what the title asserts — and it is a cost to be weighed against the protective claim rather than one that settles the question by itself.