quote:

Originally posted by sourdough44:
Some make it sound like anyone wants to put a gun in the hands of someone unqualified or not interested. That’s usually the argument against armed individuals.

While I don't think that anyone credibly thinks that simply arming law abiding people who are in schools (parent, teachers, admins, etc) is addressing the root of the problem, we on the pro-2A side are arguing against two different but very significant beliefs of the opposition when we discuss allowing lawful firearms in schools.

Of course there are a variety of reasons given in opposition, but one I hear from the gun-ban crowd is essentially that since guns are the problem, then it cannot possibly be true that guns are a solution. Another is that the intent or morality of the pro-2A side is evil at its root. They see us as not caring about children being killed, primarily out of our own lust towards guns and the feeling of power a gun gives to us. They believe this about us, which makes it difficult to refute the first and impossible to refute the second. There's no evidence which they would accept, as it is their belief system.

Will armed persons in our schools stop school shootings? Perhaps some of them.

Will armed persons in our schools stop potential shooters faster? Probably.

I'm seeing nothing but positive here. Maybe somebody can explain why that's a bad idea?

I am in favor of an armed presence in all schools, period.

The one argument that I see anything persuasive in is that it lets us say "Problem fixed!" and move on.

The problem is not "fixed". Shooters will still come. People will still die. Maybe fewer but not few enough.
What will fix the problem is if the mentally ill are treated properly or confined. I don't see that happening. If anything, I see more emphasis on the rights of people that don't share the same reality with us. You would not believe the legal hoops that have to be jumped through in order to administer a medication to someone that doesn't want it.

From an individual rights perspective, that's a good thing. I certainly believe in my own right to refuse medication, treatment, vaccines, etc. How we will split this particular baby will affect many other aspects of our republic. Lots of unintended consequences for any solution that I have heard.

For now, a speedy, decisive response is the best we can do. And it sucks.

Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
We treat school security in this nation like it’s a hobby.

Some studies on aviation risk management have pointed that all risk are not the same. Risks can be categorized as high to low probability and high to low impact. Folks tend to focus on the probability rather than the impact. Something that is unlikely to happen, but catastrophic if it does happen often doesn’t get enough consideration. School shootings likely fall into this group.

It is probably worse because if all the right things are done and nothing happens, rarely can one be sure whether all those efforts prevented a problem or nothing was going to happen anyway.

In the face of tight budgets the very success of the measures can be used to argue against them. “We have spent all this money over the last ten years and nothing has happened. Those dollars are needed elsewhere!” Of course it may well be that the reason nothing has happened in the last ten years is because of those investments, but that may not be obvious.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
Will armed persons in our schools stop school shootings? Perhaps some of them.

Will armed persons in our schools stop potential shooters faster? Probably.

I'm seeing nothing but positive here. Maybe somebody can explain why that's a bad idea?

Recall the negligent discharges by the professionals in the classrooms, lunchrooms, school sporting events? There’s at least 3 examples in the P320 thread alone.

quote:

Recall the negligent discharges by the professionals in the classrooms, lunchrooms, school sporting events?

Yes. Which is why I'm advocating for more regular people armed within schools.

The teaching staff member who went up against the perp is named and interviewed.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...adc3da13d454860&ei=9