PA Bill Number: SB945
Title: Consolidating the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L.323, No.130), known as The County Code; and making repeals.
Description: Consolidating the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L.323, No.130), known as The County Code; and making repeals. ...
Last Action: Third consideration and final passage (199-0)
Last Action Date: Apr 17, 2024
With Pa. Senate bill, another chance to dream the 'Good Guy with a Gun' dream: John L. Micek :: 04/22/2017
So here's the thing about that bill that came out of a state Senate committee this week allowing teachers and other school employees to carry guns in the classroom.
Its backers aren't wrong that it's "a sad commentary" that the General Assembly is even discussing such a proposal after years of policy and laws aimed at keeping guns out of the classroom.
But the only thing that's sadder about the bill being peddled by Sen. Don White, R-Indiana, is that there's a decent chance that it won't make our kids any safer.
In fact, it may make them less safe.
If you're just tuning in, the Senate Education Committee voted 9-3 on Wednesday to send White's bill, which would allow school boards to make the final call on whether teachers and others with training in firearms use to pack heat in the classroom, to the full Senate for a vote.
As PennLive's Jan Murphy reports, White's bill would require school employees who agree to carry a firearm at school to possess a concealed carry permit, which requires no training to obtain, according to CeaseFirePa's Shira Goodman.
Employees also would have to complete training that is designed for law enforcement personnel, which critics question whether a non-law enforcement person could access. Or they'd have to take a course certified by the state police commissioner. Right now, that course doesn't exist.
"Teachers have come to me and said I want the opportunity to defend my children and to defend my life and give me something more powerful than an eraser to throw at these people," White told the committee.
It's a noble sentiment - and I get it. I really do.
If my kid was staring down the barrel of some gun-wielding madman, I'd want her to have every chance to make it home alive. And if that means an algebra teacher with a Glock, I'd be willing to consider it.
And let me be clear here - I'm not saying no guns in schools. Having armed security guards or school resource officers, trained professionals, is entirely appropriate. But we shouldn't add to their ranks.
Because the truth is, that "good guy with a gun" myth is a fantasy of the NRA and well-meaning Second Amendment adherents.
Consider the evidence, both anecdotal and scientific:
During last year's rampage in Dallas, in which a former military gunman ambushed a crowd, killing five police officers and two civilians, it wasn't the 20 armed protesters in the crowd who brought him down.
It was a bomb, aimed at the gunman, by a police robot, according to an examination of the "Good Guy" myth by the Harvard Political Review.
And, as a 2014 FBI study concludes, such endings are the case more often than they are not.
More than half, 56 percent, of the 160 "active" shooter incidents between 2000 and 2013 ended of the shooter's own volition, either through suicide or when the shooter simply stopped shooting or fled the scene, the FBI report found.
In 45 (28.1 percent) of the 160 incidents, "law enforcement and the shooter exchanged gunfire. Of those 45 incidents, the shooter was killed at the scene in 21, killed at another location in four, wounded in nine, committed suicide in nine, and surrendered in two," the study found.
In 13 percent of the cases, or 21 incidents, the situation ended when unarmed citizens restrained the shooter. In two of those incidents, three off-duty law enforcement officers were present and assisted, the study found.
Of note in that 13 percent, "11 of the [21] incidents involved unarmed principals, teachers, other school staff and students who confronted shooters to end the threat (9 of those shooters were students)," the FBI report concluded.
"It won't make anyone safer; it likely will endanger kids and teachers; and virtually no one but the gun lobby thinks it's a good idea," Goodman, of CeaseFirePa, said in an email.
Unsurprisingly, Kim Stolfer, the president of Firearms Owners Against Crime, a gun-rights PAC, sees it another way entirely.
White's bill, he argues, highlights the failure of so-called "Gun-Free" school zones, which were intended to combat violence in the first place.
"Now we have teachers, who are supposed to take care of our children," who are unable to defend them, Stolfer argued. "Self-defense is a basic human right - especially when we have people we've charged with the protection of our kids. It's essential."
And I have to admit - it's a compelling argument.
But the data - along with the fact that even the most competent of police marksmen miss about 50 percent of the time - makes a convincing case that the last thing you need in an active shooter situation in the classroom is a Social Studies teacher who thinks he's Wyatt Earp (even with the appropriate training).
"In major cities like New York City and Los Angeles, the measured hit rates of police, according to Firearm Discharge Reports, hover far below 50 percent, some years dipping into the teens," Rachel Tropp, of the Harvard Political Review, wrote. "This statistic doesn't imply police are poor marksmen; it merely reflects the stressful, difficult, and dangerous reality of confrontations, unmatched in a shooting range or training situation."
And, "By telling unprepared civilians it's their responsibility to be heroes, the NRA contributes to the possibility that "good guys" add to the confusion at the crime scene. In the wake of the Dallas shootings, Police Chief David Brown said, 'We don't know who the good guy is versus the bad guy if everybody starts shooting,'" Tropp wrote.
That magnifies the danger for all concerned - putting the teacher, as well as students, at even greater risk.
Supporters will argue that if you can save just one person by letting a teacher have a gun, then it's worthwhile. And I get that, I really do.
But we need to very carefully ask ourselves whether that's worth the potential cost.
And I just don't know if it is.
http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2017/04/with_pa_senate_bill_another_ch.html
