|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
I know you didn't say that; it is instead implied by your premise.
If concealed carry in schools incentivizes shooters to not shoot up schools, it means the probable outcome is fewer shootings (and fewer deaths). This is because the current selection of schools includes the greatest net benefit to the shooter. If the shooter is deterred from that, it means he either doesn't go shooting (if he's on the margin) or he goes shooting in a place where he is more likely to get fewer kills.
The net effect of your premise (which is a correct premise) is fewer mass shootings and fewer associated deaths.
A school isn't the only place someone can exact a high death toll if that is their aim. In fact, there's probably a lot of other places one could do more killing, like a mall, a concert, or basically anywhere there's a large concentration of people.
So fine, if your aim is to save students' lives at the expense of other people's, then arming teachers would help with that. But it won't stop mass shootings or even limit the number of mass shootings or the number of gun deaths. I think you're not being realistic in suggesting that some crazy person decides 'i'm gonna shoot up a school' and would just give up that plan if the schoolteachers were armed, and do nothing instead. My sense is they would almost certainly carry it out somewhere else.
Also, not to diminish the importance of what's happened in these schools, but there's 150,000 schools in the USA, and about a dozen shootings/yr with > 1 casualty over the last couple of years. The chance of any given school experiencing a mass shooting in a given year is less than 1 in 10,000. So I think the whole thing about school shootings is being overblown by all the media attention they get. The bigger problem is gun deaths in general and arming teachers is not going to address that in any significant way.
|
Reply With Quote