We negate the resolution that teachers should be armed due to the waste of money, time, and safety.
We would like to present the following definitions:
Armed is defined by merriam-webster to be furnished with weapons
Weapon is defined by merriam-webster to be something used to injure, defeat, or destroy.
We believe this resolution is asking us to advocate to negate and our opponents to advocate to affirm. The team which best meets those burdens will win this debate.
Money
Our argument is that we don’t have enough money to supply the guaranteed supplies for safety of the students. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence states, “Researchers conservatively estimate that gun violence costs the American economy at least $229 billion every year, including $8.6 billion in direct expenses such as for emergency and medical care.” If we allow each teacher in every school to obtain a gun, then our debt would increase tremendously. Scott
…show more content…
Unlike professional shooters, teachers must undergo a series of training in order to obtain a gun. Without the proper protection and training, which was not included in the resolution, would guarantee that the weapons would fall under the wrong hands of the students. Everytown Research states, “Among shootings at K-12 schools in which the age of the shooter was known, 56 percent (39 of 70) were perpetrated by minors.” The resolution states that all teachers would be armed, but, if the teachers were to be armed, the teachers would traumatize the students mentally away from them. Hamby, a research professor in the department of education states, “ ...the links between exposure to weapons violence and negative outcomes of trauma in kids (including depression, anxiety and aggression).” This is important because if the students are aware of the teacher’s possession then the risks of wrongdoing and mental disasters will definitely