Even if that's only 1% of the total faculty members, it's still sufficient to act as a deterrent.
The potential of an armed good guy was pretty high at that church in Texas, too.
Most people don't take their guns to church. Most churches, even in areas where carry is generally allowed, tend to request their members to not bring them. So I'm not sure what your point is here.
Didn't seem to deter that shooting in Lincoln County, Mississippi either.
And? That wasn't a match to the usual spree shooting either. Assuming you're talking about the guy with multiple felony offenses on his record who started out killing a few of his family members, then proceeded to shoot some other folks, including a police officer, that is. Note how the laws prohibiting him from owning a firearm also didn't seem to impact his ability to do this at all. Again though, that's not so relevant to the "disturbed kid goes on a rampage at his school" type shooting that we're talking about.
Or the one at the Walmart in Colorado ... huh, it's like there are real life incidents where the potential of armed resistance doesn't actually have any real life affect at all.
Sigh. Again. There are different types of shootings, with different motivations for the shooter. We can't treat them all with one broad brush. What I always find interesting in this debate is how the motivation for "fixing something!" comes when we have a mass shooting of the kind we just had in Florida, but when proposed changes get tossed out there, suddenly all these other types of crimes committed with guns start getting pushed in. "Oh no! We can't do that, because <insert other shooting here> wont be affected!". Um... So what? Let's focus on the school shootings. That's what's pushing this, right?
Really, any shooting that happens somewhere that might have had an armed "good guy" pretty much proves that potential ninja snipers aren't a deterrent.
Except the one case we're actually talking about, which is schools. Right? I thought the whole point here was to figure out how to prevent school shootings like we just saw in Florida.
Most of the licensed gun owners I know treat their weapons like toys and don't maintain them, so I doubt they'll make fees there.
Worry not! You can rest assured knowing that the 89 year old English teacher that might
be packing that luger spends every night making sure their weapon is safe to fire and they're adequate at consistently hitting their targets between grading papers.
Let's just toss out the silly strawman then. Why not assume that out of the set of gun owners, some will be competent and confident in their gun use, and others will be folks who bought one 20 years ago, and have never touched it, or who have one because their spouse who died back in 1972 had one, and it's still sitting in the drawer collecting dust. Why assume that out of these two different sets of gun owners, the ones who'll be packing heat at school will be the latter?
There are plenty of faculty at our K-12 schools who are in the former set. And out of those, the ones who are most likely to actually bring their weapons to work with them, will be the ones who are the most well practiced, not the least. Why throw that potential resource out the window when the lives of our kids are on the line? What's that you say? We can't allow "the people" to protect themselves? Can't have a solution to any problem that doesn't involve some big expensive government funded program? Yeah. That's more likely what is running this. It's not even about gun control for many on the Left who oppose this, but that they just don't like the idea of "people" being empowered to do things. All solutions must be government solutions. To allow otherwise would undermine their entire political ideology.
And no amount of dead kids will ever let them allow that to happen! Edited, Mar 6th 2018 5:25pm by gbaji