It’s official. In spite of widespread opposition from many citizens, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act took effect this week. Under this law, educators participating in the Guardian Program are now authorized to carry concealed firearms on elementary, middle, and high school campuses across Florida. Enacted in May, the legislation allows teachers to be armed, excluding those whose sole responsibility is classroom instruction. This means that if a teacher has additional duties, such as coaching, they qualify to carry a weapon.
Numerous Floridians campaigned vigorously against the idea of firearms in schools. The overwhelming sentiment among educators, parents, students, and school administrators was against this measure. Nevertheless, the lawmakers pushed the legislation through.
The new law mandates that each school must have at least one armed individual present but leaves it up to districts to choose between employing a School Resource Officer (SRO) or using staff trained through the Guardian program. Of Florida’s 67 counties, only 39 are participating in the Guardian initiative. Many of these counties felt pressured to adopt it due to budget constraints that made hiring a full-time SRO unfeasible.
In Brevard County, where I reside, I attended school board meetings where members grappled with budgetary concerns to comply with the bill while also addressing parents’ strong opposition to arming teachers. The financial reality was stark: hiring a trained SRO costs about $80,000 annually, while arming a teacher is significantly cheaper. As a result, some schools barely met the requirements of a law that faced heavy criticism from those it affects. Thankfully, my children’s schools secured full-time SROs, but the frustration remains that we didn’t want this law in the first place, and the funding provided was insufficient to meet its demands.
A larger question looms: what are we as a nation doing? Many believe that adding firearms will not solve our gun-related issues. The matter of school safety and the threat of mass shootings is intrinsically linked to gun access. Addressing mental health challenges in the country is vital, but introducing more guns will only exacerbate the situation.
What would genuinely improve safety? Implementing red flag laws, conducting background checks for all gun sales, creating a national registry to connect guns with their owners, enforcing stricter penalties for negligent storage of firearms, and considering voluntary buy-back programs could all contribute to a safer environment. Instead, we are heading in the opposite direction by allowing teachers and staff—whose identities remain undisclosed to parents—to carry concealed weapons around our children.
I recognize that some advocates for this program may genuinely believe they are enhancing student safety. However, decisions regarding this initiative seemed rushed and emotional, neglecting critical data about gun accidents, crimes, and safety.
Research shows that having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of its residents being shot. In fact, those living in homes with firearms face a 3.7 times higher risk of accidental shooting-related deaths than those without guns. This bill poses even greater danger to Black and brown children.
A study that analyzed data on shootings across three cities found that for every instance in which a gun in the home was used for self-defense, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 suicide attempts or completions. The ratio is staggering, yet we persist in believing that guns enhance our safety. Lawmakers seem to ignore the fact that these statistics will likely hold true in schools.
Participants in the Guardian program must undergo training that includes psychological evaluations, drug screenings, and 144 hours of range training, compensated with $500. While this training might seem reassuring, the reality is that it doesn’t adequately prepare teachers to confront an armed assailant. The idea of a lone educator with a sidearm facing off against a shooter wielding a semi-automatic weapon is troubling. The risk of mishaps resulting in injury or death to a child is far more concerning.
Meanwhile, we instruct our children to hide silently in closets, fearing a potential shooter. We gamble on the slim chance that an exhausted history teacher with a firearm could thwart a heavily armed assailant. This gamble becomes even more precarious when we consider the implications for students of color. Unfortunately, amendments proposed to protect these students were rejected.
In Florida, the Stand Your Ground law could protect a teacher who felt threatened by a student’s behavior and used their weapon, requiring only minimal evidence to justify such an action.
Thus, we find ourselves moving in the wrong direction regarding gun violence. I feel disappointed and angry about these developments, and I will continue to advocate for keeping firearms out of our classrooms. If you share my concerns, consider joining the movement by exploring resources like this guide on home insemination kits and fertility supplements. For comprehensive information on pregnancy and procedures, Healthline’s IVF resource is invaluable.
In summary, the decision to allow teachers to carry firearms, despite significant opposition, raises serious concerns about safety in schools. The implications for students, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds, are alarming. While advocates may have good intentions, the evidence suggests that introducing guns into educational settings is a misguided approach to addressing the complexities of gun violence.
Keyphrase: Florida school staff carrying firearms
Tags: [“home insemination kit” “home insemination syringe” “self insemination”]