When did a faculty member sprint to their car, get a gun, and stop a mass shooting? I find it difficult to just take your word on this one.
Ended a shooting (again, "stop" can also mean "prevent", which is not what I'm talking about). Go look up the Pearl High School Shooting. Of course, unless you really look, you'll just read that the assistant principle stopped the shooter with his pistol as the shooter was attempting to leave the scene. What you wont read, unless you look for more detail
, is that the reason he wasn't able to intervene earlier was because he had to run to his vehicle to retrieve his weapon:
The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick, who has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.
Myrick is as much of a hero as the law would allow. He was only seconds away from the shootings, yet the law had him far away from his gun. Federal law precludes anyone but a cop from having a weapon in or near a school. The modern spree of school shootings began sometime shortly after this law was enacted. In most places, state and local laws needlessly duplicate the federal law, serving only to accommodate political grandstanding.
How many fewer shots would the shooter have gotten off if he had only need to run to his office, or lounge to retrieve his gun instead of the federally mandated distance from the edge of the campus?
I'm going to have to say that the odds of this helping more than harming are slim to none.
And yet, there are nearly as many stories of individual armed civilians intervening in a shooting (and potentially preventing it from becoming a mass shooting in the first place) as there are stories of mass shootings themselves. For every Aurora Theater Shooting, there's a New Destiny Church shooting (also in Aurora just 3 months prior) which never became a mass shooting because one person happened to be there with a concealed weapon and ended the shooting.
Remember that the odds of being in such a shooting in the first place are "slim to none", yet they do happen.
Not only do the stars have to align just so to have this hypothetical go off as planned, but I also would not feel terribly comfortable knowing that the creepy janitor at my kids school might be packing heat while my child is in attendance. Thinking back to my school days, I can think of maybe one or two faculty members that I might have trusted to handle a gun around the students. If your harebrained scheme were to be in any way effective, there would have to be mandatory gun training involved for all faculty, and if you're going to start expecting these faculty members to play Rambo, you definitely need to pay them at least double what they're making now.
Most people who own firearms legally are capable users of them (yes, there are exceptions). Doubly so those who apply for and obtain concealed carry permits. Presumably triply those who are also employees at a school (and already have a whole bunch of requirements and responsibilities when it comes to the kids in their care). And my suggestion does not preclude a school deciding who can or can't carry weapons on their campus. If they decide that the janitor isn't sufficiently responsible or trusted, they can exclude janitorial staff if they wish. They can also require that anyone who wants to bring a weapon to work must pass a safety class (or place any other restriction they want). The point is that without removing the current federal and state laws regarding this, we can't allow *anyone* other than on duty police and security to legally have firearms on or near a school campus, whether the school, the district, or the parents would want them to or not.
Its just not a good idea on so many fronts, IMHO.
Because it's unlikely to reduce the number of deaths when a shooting occurs? But "unlikely" is still greater odds than currently exist. And even under the current restrictions there have been rare cases where it's happened anyway. So higher probability of reducing the number of dead children isn't worth it? Why not?
What's strange is that we can say with some degree of certainty that the statistical number of deaths from such shootings will be greater over time with those laws in place than with them not. So by keeping them in place we are killing school children. We don't know which ones, or how many, but we are increasing the total number who will be (and have been) killed over any given period of time by keeping those laws in place. So you're basically supporting a course of action which will result in more dead kids purely because.... why? A knee jerk assumption that guns are bad and should be banned wherever we can? I just don't get it. I'm sure for the hard core long term anti-gun crowd increased deaths among students is a price worth paying for the goal of more gun control, but is this something more "normal" people agree with? If you could pass a law that would ensure that 10 more children were killed in gun violence each year, but that by doing so you'd increase awareness of gun violence and increase the odds of passing some kind of sweeping gun control, would you do it? Would the end goal of gun control be worth a statistically increased number of deaths of children?
To me, that's what we're looking at here. It's a law that seems designed to make schools nice fat targets for potential mass shooters. It's designed to maximize the number of kids who will die when such shootings do occur. Now maybe that's just unintended side effects of a well meaning law, or maybe it's a sinister plot to intentionally create as many helpless child victims of guns as possible as part of a longer term gun control push. I can't say for sure, but in either case, shouldn't any rational person oppose the law? I think so. Unless you want more kids to die in these kinds of shootings, that is. Edited, Jan 21st 2013 5:46pm by gbaji