Arming Teachers: A Real Discussion
Todd Zuccato is right. I concentrated on showing the lack of evidence for rising crime in schools rather than debunking any evidence that arming teachers would reduce school crime (which would have been hard since you yourself concede that there really isn’t any), my aim was to demonstrate that we shouldn’t be open to solutions for problems that aren’t problems–namely–the non-existent rise in school crime. I’m going to assume that Todd is not disputing the NCES and Bureau of Justice statistics (that would be fruitless since they are pretty much the definitive numbers on school crime). Any crime in schools is a problem, but the hysteria created by pundits over school crime without any basis in fact drives me nuts and prevents us from finding solutions that work.
In response to Todd’s challenge, let’s talk about the . The results of that study have largely been debunked by the likes of Frank Zimring , Gordon Hawkins, Jens Ludwig, Dan Nagin and Mark Duggan, and Ted Goertzel who have offered rather damaging critiques of the econometric modeling used and conclusions drawn by the study’s authors. In particular, Chaprter 8 of Ian Ayers and John J. Donohue’s forthcoming book “ offers the most exhaustive critique of their methodology and conclusions.
With the benefit of more complete data than were available initially to Lott and Mustard, I conclude that the best statistical evidence does not support the claim that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Although the discussion of the approach used by and problems with the work of Lott and Mustard can get technical, the points can be summarized in a more intuitive fashion. First, their initial analysis compares the changes in crime in ten states that passed shall-issue laws between 1985 and 1991, including states like Maine, West Virginia, Idaho, and Montana, with states that did not, such as New York, California, Illinois, and New Jersey. However, I suspect the changes in crime in the late 1980s were quite different in these two groups for reasons that had nothing to do with the shall-issue laws, but rather with the criminogenic influence of the new crack cocaine trade in more urban, poor inner city areas (most commonly found in states that did not adopt shall-issue laws). If this suspicion is true, then the relatively smaller crime increases in adopting states over this period would be incorrectly attributed to the law when wholly separate forces were really the explanation.
Second, because the adoption of shall-issue laws does not occur randomly across states and over time, it is harder to discern the impact of the law (just as a randomized medical experiment to determine the effectiveness of a drug will provide better guidance than merely observing who chooses to take the drug and what happens to those who do and do not). Since there is evidence of a “treatment effect” even before the laws are adopted, one needs to be cautious in drawing conclusions about the actual effect of the shall-issue laws. This concern is heightened by fears that spikes in crime encourage the adoption of shall-issue laws, and then the accompanying drops in crime (representing a return to more normal times or “regression to the mean”) will be inaccurately attributed to the passage of the law. When the Lott and Mustard statistical model is run for the period in the 1990s when the spikes in crime reversed themselves, suddenly shall-issue laws are associated with uniform increases in crime. Thus, with the benefit of five more years of data, during which time thirteen states and the city of Philadelphia adopted shall-issue laws, one sees very different patterns than what Lott and Mustard observed in their initial study on ten adopting states with dates ending in 1992. With the expanded data set, there is much evidence that could be amassed to support the view that shall-issue laws tend to increase crime, at least in most states. But the third set of factors that undermines the more-guns, less-crime hypothesis probably weakens that conclusion too: the results tend to be sensitive to whether one uses county or state data, which time period one looks at, and what statistical method one employs. While scholars may be able to sort out some of the disputes about coding adoption dates for shall-issue laws, which when corrected tend to modestly weaken the Lott and Mustard results, there are still uncertainties about data quality and model specification that may not easily be resolved with the current aggregated crime data. In the end, the most that can be said is that when adopted in the states that have so far adopted them, shall-issue laws may not increase crime as much as many feared. But these laws still may create social unease if citizens are apprehensive that even greater numbers of individuals walking through shopping malls, schools, and churches and sitting in movie theatres are carrying lethal weapons.
Lott and Mustard emphasize that few holders of gun permits are found to have committed murder, but they fail to recognize that the number of murders can rise from the passage of shall-issue laws, even if no permit holder ever commits a crime. First, knowing that members of the public are armed may encourage criminals to carry guns and use them more quickly, resulting in more felony murders. Second, as already mentioned, the massive theft of guns each year means that anything that increases the number of guns in America will likely increase the flow of guns into the hands of criminals, who may use them to commit murders. Notably, the typical gun permit holder is a middle-aged Republican white male, which is a group at relatively low risk of violent criminal victimization with or without gun ownership, so it is not clear whether substantial crime reduction benefits are likely to occur by arming this group further. (pp. 289-290)
The more in-depth critique begins on p. 291 and goes on for several pages. And here is an abstract of a written by Dr M R Rosengart at University of Pittsburgh showing that shall-issue permits increased the rate of firearm homicides (along with charts)
As always, there is good evidence and bad. While the Lott-Mustard study is good because it was the first to complete such a large study, what Donohue and other scholars have shown is that once the data set is expanded, the results are reversed and an increase in crime is shown. In Donohue’s words: “In the end, the most that can be said is that when adopted in the states that have so far adopted them, shall-issue laws may not increase crime as much as many feared.” So that may be sort of a positive conclusion for those in favor of shall-issue permits. However, it presents absolutely NO evidence that arming teachers would reduce school violence or crime, and in fact potentially shows the opposite although we would be comparing apples and oranges (school and non-school violence).
Interestingly, the FBI just released new violent crime figures, showing a 2.5% jump from last year. However, the overall national trend line is still down.
The above reports also support my initial point—that increased presence of guns actually increases gun-related crime. But, I can find more research to support that conclusion at a later date. However, what Todd did not dispute was my larger point–that the problem is with violence in society rather than with violence in schools and any solution needs to approach the problem from there if we really want to work on the problem. The discussion we are having about it is one positive byproduct of Beers’ silly proposal.
And on a totally unrelated note. I love it when people write “Ah, minx” in affectionate exasperation.
Similar Posts:
- Arming Teachers to Reduce School Violence: A Truly Foolish Proposal
- War On Birth Control
- AOL ” Anonymous” Search Data Reveals All
Enjoy this post? Leave a comment below or . You also can sign up for email delivery by .
Aah Minx – such a scholarly discussion – and – duh – supported by research – nice job. Crime in schools? We are finding that the “criminals” at school enjoy taking their criminal acts out in the surrounding “hoods”. Neighborhoods around schools are victims of racial slurs/car-keying, vandalism, break-ins, and occasional shooting/stabbing/ street fight after school. We also know that if they could just get rid of about 75 high school criminals on the campus, peace would reign both on campus and in the neighborhood. Kids who have guns at school are usually ratted off – heaven forbid that guns might be even more accessible than they are now.
Ahh… Minx!!!
I can not even IMAGINE what my “schooling” would have been like having known that certain “teachers” of mine were “packing heat.” (take out the quotes. It reads much better…)
This isn’t about what Mr. Beer’s see’s as the solution to school violence.
It’s about how to control a perceived “out of control” student populace.
I don’t see where guns, nor the threat of such, betters the education of our youngsters.
It reeks more like a simple fear tactic.
Way to go Beers.
Ahh… Minx!!!
I can not even IMAGINE what my “schooling” would have been like having known that certain “teachers” of mine were “packing heat.” (take out the quotes. It reads much better…)
This isn’t about what Mr. Beer’s see’s as the solution to school violence.
It’s about how to control a perceived “out of control” student populace.
I don’t see where guns, nor the threat of such, betters the education of our youngsters.
It reeks more of a simple fear tactic.
Way to go Beers.
I see everything twice!
Got gun accidents ??
Legal liability for the School districts is huge !
This is BS.
This wouldn’t even be a discussion if a) parents actually disciplined their kids and took some time out for them at home (it isn’t the school’s job to be a parent), and b) teachers actually demanded some respect. I know a few teachers do have an air about them that gets respect but a lot that were my teachers growing up and the teachers I know don’t command much respect.
Here are two occasions where a teacher/administrator with a concealed weapon was able to save lives.
In the Pearl, Miss., shooting, an assistant principal retrieved his gun from his office and used it to physically immobilize the shooter before he caused additional harm.
In Edinboro, Penn., which left one teacher dead, “a shotgun pointed at the offender while he was reloading his gun prevented additional harm. The police did not arrive for another ten minutes” after the assailant was apprehended by
school staff.
See my article at
It’s really quite simple: gun laws do not prevent criminals from carrying guns into schools.
Once you understand and accept that immutable fact of life, it’s easy to see that allowing properly licensed adult teachers to carry their licensed concealed weapons with them, into school, is a viable solution.
A fully disarmed faculty is a student gunman’s dream.
Schools that need it have security, teachers need to concentrate on teaching. Todd, so what, and glad it worked out in those two incidences? Since the evidence now shows that shall-issue permits actually cause more violence, well, it seems counterproductive on the whole don’t you think? I sure wouldn’t want to find out about the first tragedy that occurred BECAUSE a classroom teacher had a gun. I frankly just don’t get the hysteria that motivates these arguments, or is it as simple as the gun lobby trying to get guns in everywhere they can?
Paul, right about parents, half-right about teachers commanding respect. I’ve written a couple of posts about how, as a society, we have done our best to TAKE respect and authority away from teachers. Parents think they know better than trained professionals which is ridiculous. Sure, there are bad teachers, but at least they went to school to be one. WTF do most parents know about curriculum and pedagogy?
I know this is going to be a bad example but here it goes. I know you can be thought of as a professional when you wear jeans and such but it seems that teachers these days don’t give off an air to get respect.
You’re right about society “taking” authority away from teachers. My dad has been telling me for years how teachers got respect when he was in high school. Teachers got respect by demanding it. Just the threat that a teacher bigger than you could make your life hell set most of those kids straight. I had a principal in middle school who was a Golden Gloves boxing champ as a kid. He was the nicest guy on the planet but just knowing that this guy could handle himself made everybody think twice.
But you are leaving out school boards and principals that pander to parents who make a stink rather than respect the decisions of their own faculty. These days, many of the teachers that demand respect have the rug pulled out from under them over the first parent disagreement form a board to scared to be sued over making their kids read a book with the word “menstruation” in it. The horror.
I had a second grade teacher–SECOND GRADE–who used to sneak up behind students and smack a ruler down on the desk. Scared the bejesus out of us but we all loved him.
Perhaps sending all teachers to martial arts training rather than allowing them to arm themselves would be a more successful crime prevention strategy. Like the Golden Gloves thing.
Did you see on the news last night the story about gym teacher Jencie Fagan, who disarmed a 14-yr-old middle school student from Reno who superficially shot two other students last spring? How did she do it? She talked to him, asked him to put down his weapon and then hugged him til police arrived him. What on earth possessed her? She said she treats students like their her own kids. For this she won a Carnegie heroism award with a $5,000 cash prize.
What are the odds this story have the same outcome if teacher had been armed?
Myrna, you’re right, I did forget about the principals and school board. A major change that needs to occur in school is the idea of “social promotion.” It has a ripple effect from elementary school through college. As an aside, my uncle was a middle school history teacher and a lot of his kids failed their mid-terms that year. He was a good teacher so that wasn’t an issue. The problem was that parents started complaining that their kids might fail and be held back a year. The principal blinked and said my uncle wasn’t allowed to fail anybody. So the rest of the semester he just sat back and didn’t teach them much of anything. That’s what it is coming down to, parents don’t want discipline and hard classes for their children because they might not be number one anymore. Teachers are forced to dumb down their teaching to fit the lowest common denominator instead of teaching to the highest denominator and helping out the slower kids separately.
“These days, many of the teachers that demand respect have the rug pulled out from under them over the first parent disagreement form a board to scared to be sued over making their kids read a book with the word “menstruation” in it. The horror.”
Just out of curiosity, where is the evidence to support this claim?
First, its not a “claim.” I’m breaking my jerz comment moratorium because a lot of people are reading this thread and the demand for evidence makes it seem as if the story is made up. Who would make up such a thing anyway? Its a little , uh, specific. Place, Southern California, book, “Memories of a Geisha,” parents, born again Christians who didn’t want their children reading about menstruation. Was this in the newspaper? No, but its a true story–one of many that don’t get publicized outside of the local district because school boards cave in the face of lawsuits. Teachers all over the country can tell stories about similar episodes in their districts–particularly at the middle and high school levels.
So the fear of “menstruation” is one thing. But you used it to show that teachers are generally fearful of being authoritative. If that is correct, then you need evidence. If it’s not, why is a fear of “menstruation” coming up in a discussion about school violence?