What’s worse than the rampant violence and death going on in our country today?

Requiring teachers to carry firearms and trained to be sharpshooters against someone with a semi-automatic weapon designed to kill multiple people at once.

Why do people even buy semi-automatic weapons? I can’t imagine it being used for “hunting purposes” since the deer would look more like swiss cheese after an AR-15 shoots it.

As ridiculous as this sounds, it is something that is being considered by our 45th U.S. president.

“These people are cowards. They’re not going to walk into a school if 20 percent of the teachers have guns — it may be 10 percent or may be 40 percent. And what I’d recommend doing is the people that do carry, we give them a bonus. We give them a little bit of a bonus,” President Donald Drumpf said during a press conference on Feb. 22. “They’ll frankly feel more comfortable having the gun anyway. But you give them a little bit of a bonus.”

However, teachers need more than guns.

They need healthcare coverage, they need pensions, they need better wages and school supplies. I find it extremely alarming that school programs such as arts and physical education can be automatically cut without a second thought, but the idea of a gun training program for teachers is being considered.

The stress with constantly having to keep a gun out of reach from children and worrying about active shooters should not even exist in the first place. Elected officials should ban deadly assault rifles that can easily be bought in Walmarts.

We shouldn’t be answering the question of how to stop gun violence with more guns. Students would also feel uneasy. As a current university student, I wouldn’t want to think about how my teachers and professors are carrying guns while they’re lecturing about Shakespeare.

Additionally, not only would financing the program be difficult, there could also be inadequate training. If the government refuses to screen people who want to purchase guns every day, who’s to say they will mentally-health screen every single teacher?

“I couldn’t even imagine what the kids must have felt having to witness their classmates and teachers getting shot at. Of course it made me think about my school and students, and I worry about their safety,” said CPS 10th-grade teacher Husna Kidwai on the subject of the recent school shooting.

“I had to reassure my students that our school is pretty diligent with safety and security. We went over drill procedures and what do to if something like that ever happened,” she said.

On the subject of whether teachers should be required to carry firearms in classrooms, Kidwai responded, “If I needed to be a shield for them I would, but I don’t think it’s my responsibility. It’s not fair to expect teachers to be taking bullets for their students when the government is doing little to nothing about tightening gun laws.

“I am definitely not comfortable with carrying a gun to school and then being expected to use it in case of a shooting. How does it make sense to combat bullets with more bullets? It’s going to lead to more casualties,” Kidwai said.

She expressed that the answer to no more school shootings should be no more guns.

Mirsad Muminovic, an aspiring teacher who’s studying at NEIU, said, “I would use this situation as a teaching moment to cement to my students the importance of their civil duty. Voters make the difference, and the types of voters that allow the government officials to be elected impact not only gun laws and mental health, but also my student’s very own lives.

“It is a moral obligation as a teacher to use my body as a shield in the likely chance something horrific were to occur. Educators should foster young minds at any cost and that should include risking their own lives to save their students,” Muminovic said.

“Arming teachers would not necessarily make the school safer. Teachers can misplace their weapons or students can forcefully take the weapon from the teacher and it leads to even more chaotic scenarios.

“A single faculty member such as a security guard having a handgun would pail in comparison to the army weaponry that school shooters have used in the past. It would be like a duel between a police officer and an army soldier, the army weaponry is far too sophisticated compared to the police man’s handgun,” Muminovic concluded.

In the end, the ones paying the price are children and students. We are the ones who lose our futures and our lives because of this violence. However, we are more passionate about it because we pay the price and I personally will not stop advocating to place a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles until it is accomplished.