Readers React: Arming teachers — what could possibly go wrong?

President Trump takes part in a listening session on gun violence with teachers and students at the White House on Feb. 21.
President Trump takes part in a listening session on gun violence with teachers and students at the White House on Feb. 21.
(Mandel Ngan / AFP/Getty Images)

To the editor: Is arming teachers with guns, as President Trump proposes, really the way to prevent school shootings? (“Trump suggests arming schools in emotional meeting with gun violence survivors and parents,” Feb. 21)

I think not, and as a parent of grown children and as a grandparent, I would select home schooling rather than send my kids and grandkids to schools where guns are present and available for teachers and others to use. The list of things that could go wrong with this so-called “solution” is endless.

The United States needs to look at what other countries have implemented — such as Great Britain and Australia — where school shootings do not happen.


Janet Bell, North Tustin


To the editor: There is only one solution to the problem of school shootings, and it has nothing to do with banning certain firearms or mental health evaluations.

School shootings happen because schools are often designated as “gun-free zones.” The well-meaning intention is that if we ban guns at schools, no one will bring a gun and start shooting.

The exact opposite has happened. Persons who want to harm and kill others in mass shootings quickly realize they can shoot and kill as many unarmed individuals in gun-free zones as they wish. Our well-intentioned laws have made our schools killing fields.

The only was to stop school mass killings is to arm unidentifiable teachers with concealed weapons. They would be trained by appropriate State Police Officer Standards and Training guidelines.

Randolph M. West, San Diego


To the editor: Arming teachers? Raising the legal age to purchase military-grade weapons to 21? These are the best ideas of the president of the United States?

Placing a couple of armed security personnel in our schools is not a bad idea, but that is a job for properly trained police officers, not educators. Still, there is the question of how that would prevent another mass slaughter.

Raising the legal age to buy firearms makes some sense. Some people would argue that if people can join the military as teenagers, they should have the right to own assault weapons privately. Soldiers’ use of assault weapons while on active duty is justified, but not when they return to civilian life.

No one under 21 should be able to buy any firearm other than single-shot hunting rifles or shotguns. And assault weapons should be banned from civilian use.

The utility of assault weapons to law-abiding civilians is far, far less than the harm they have brought to our society. Count the hundreds of dead Americans and the families and friends impacted, all so a small group of enthusiasts can get their rocks off. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Daniel Shafer, Los Angeles


To the editor: Yes, Trump listens — he listens to the National Rifle Assn.

Arming teachers is straight out of the NRA playbook of talking points that endangers our children and puts money in the pockets of the gun manufacturers.

Margot Bennett, Culver City

The writer is executive director of Women Against Gun Violence.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook