It’s official: the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act has taken effect this week, much to the dismay of numerous Floridians. Under this new legislation, educators who are part of the Guardian Program can now discreetly carry firearms on elementary, middle, and high school campuses across Florida. Enacted in May, the bill permits certain teachers—those with responsibilities beyond just teaching, like coaching—to be armed.
Despite considerable opposition from teachers, parents, and students alike, politicians pushed this law through without regard for public sentiment. The legislation mandates that every school must have at least one armed individual present but allows districts to choose between a School Resource Officer (SRO) or staff members trained through the Guardian Program. Out of Florida’s 67 counties, only 39 are participating in this initiative, many facing budget constraints that preclude hiring full-time SROs.
In my own district in Brevard County, I attended school board meetings where members struggled to fund an SRO while addressing community concerns about arming teachers. The financial reality is stark: hiring a trained SRO costs around $80,000 annually, compared to a few thousand dollars for arming a teacher. Consequently, some schools are left with just a guardian, barely meeting a mandate that many in the community did not support. Thankfully, my children’s schools were among those that secured a full-time SRO. The frustration stems from the fact that not only did we not want this law in the first place, but the funding to comply with it is grossly inadequate.
As a nation, we must ask ourselves what direction we are heading. Many of us believe that merely introducing more firearms isn’t a solution to our gun violence issues. The root of school safety challenges—including the threat of mass shootings—ultimately ties back to gun-related problems. While it’s essential to address mental health concerns, adding more guns into the equation only complicates matters.
So, what could actually make a difference? Implementing red flag laws, conducting background checks on all gun sales, creating a national registry that connects every firearm to its owner, and enforcing stricter penalties for unsafe gun storage would all contribute to a safer environment. We’re moving in the wrong direction when we allow teachers—who parents won’t even know are armed—to carry concealed weapons among our children.
While some proponents of the Guardian Program may genuinely believe they are enhancing student safety, the decisions were made in haste and emotional response, largely ignoring the statistics surrounding gun accidents and crime. Research shows that having a firearm in the home substantially increases the risk of residents being shot; in fact, the likelihood of accidental shootings is 3.7 times higher in homes with guns.
The implications of this law are particularly concerning for students of color. Data shows that for every justified shooting involving a gun in the home, there are four unintentional shootings, seven assaults or homicides, and eleven suicide attempts. The notion that introducing firearms into schools would yield different results is naive at best.
Participants in the Guardian Program are required to complete some training, including psychological evaluations and drug screenings, along with 144 hours of firearms training. While this training might seem reassuring, it doesn’t address the reality that a lone teacher with a firearm is ill-equipped to confront an armed assailant wielding a high-capacity weapon. The risk of accidental discharge injuring a child is alarmingly high.
Simultaneously, we are instructing our kids to hide silently in closets, hoping a stressed-out history teacher with a sidearm can thwart a shooter armed with a semi-automatic weapon. This gamble—believing that distributing firearms to teachers is a sound strategy—ignores the evidence.
Furthermore, the potential for racial bias in these situations cannot be dismissed. Teachers may misinterpret the actions of students of color as threatening, leading to dangerous outcomes. A teacher could legally justify using lethal force against a child simply by claiming they felt threatened.
In summary, instead of making our schools safer, this approach seems to be exacerbating the problem of gun violence. I am dismayed and frustrated, and I will continue to advocate against the presence of guns in our classrooms. If you share these concerns, consider joining the movement by visiting Moms Demand Action to connect with your legislators and make your voice heard.
Leave a Reply