Connecticut Town Considers Arming Teachers
The town of Kent, Connecticut, is considering a program that would arm teachers at school.
Kent selectmen voted 2-1 on Wednesday to present information about the "FASTER Saves Lives" program to the Kent Board of Education. The board will ultimately decide whether to implement the program at the pre-K through eighth-grade Kent Center School.
The program, Faculty/Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response, provides firearms training to school employees in the event of an attack or an intrusion.
"I guess I'm really on the fence," Kent parent Paulette Menniti told CBS affiliate WFSB. "That's a really touchy subject. It's really hard to make that call. I want my children safe, but at the hands of someone who is extremely well-trained and someone with a good mind and sound mind. That, of course, is up to opinion."
Two out of three selectmen voted to support the proposal. The lone dissenter, Bruce Adams, said: "I didn't feel that our small elementary school is ready for, or needs armed people."
Criminals might disagree, Mr. Adams.
Connecticut's Democrat, anti-gun governor Daniel Malloy is concerned about the program.
"If any board of education would approve this, I'd be shocked, frightened and disappointed," said Malloy, who said he felt compelled to comment publicly about the situation. "It makes no sense. And no school system in the state of Connecticut should be allowed to do this."
Malloy is a real clown. Arming school employees to defend themselves and the children against an attack makes perfect sense. If the governor is comfortable with police being armed, why not be comfortable with trained school employees being armed? What is the difference?
The program was introduced to the town by Selectman Jeffrey Parkin.
"It's being suggested that teachers would be walking around the school visibly packing guns," he said. "If Kent went into this program, the gun or guns would be concealed. It would be up the Board of Education how the gun would be kept, possibly in a safe with access for trained staff."
But ignorant Malloy explained, "The idea that we're going to have a volunteer receive 26 hours of training or teachers and principals receive 26 hours of training, that's just unacceptable. It puts children in more danger, not less."
What kind of expert on firearms training is Malloy? How many hours of training would be sufficient? Could we get an agreement if the teachers and employees were to have the "proper amount" of training or does Malloy just not want any school employee to have a weapon to protect the school?
I don't understand the anti-gun left who are perfectly fine with police having firearms but not "everyday people." The police are "everyday" people and one of the many parts of training to be a police office is learning marksmanship. But anyone can properly learn how to use a firearm. This is just more needless fear-mongering by the usual suspects to stop people from being able to protect themselves and their children.