Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Gorgias: OK – so, you’ll have to remove ‘suicide’ and ‘law-enforcement action’ from your statistics, then. Suicide will remain (folks’ll just find other methods); so, that isn’t really ‘gun violence’ cost, then. We’ll presume you’re not asking law enforcement to give up their guns, so their costs will remain, as well.

The law enforcement costs were confined to law enforcement action in reaction to offenders who were using firearms. If you took out suicide, the cost would still be ten times
higher than buying back the guns, and that’s only for one year. A one time 30 billion dollar cost against, 170 billion the same year and every year thereafter? C’mon, Gorgois. You are smarter than that I think.

So, where are your ‘costs’ being borne, then? Hospital costs? Future potential earnings of those killed by gun violence? How are those sources going to pay for the tens (or hundreds) of billions that a gun buy-back will cost? Remember – we’re not talking about soft dollars here: a gun buy-back will cost real dollars. You’re not demonstrating any bank accounts from which those dollars will come.

All costs are paid collectively like any other cost, whether directly or indirectly. Also for a Federal or even State budget 30 billion is not huge. How much do you think conservatives gifted Halliburton with in the past 12 years?

Like I said, ‘soft dollars’. None of these are actual real dollars! In other words, none of these losses can be liquidated to provide hard cash for a gun buy-back! You can see that, can’t you?

There is only one sort of dollar. Every inch of productivity lost costs the system, and every component of the system has ripple effects on the next. Paying survivors social security benefits to the wife and children of a gun violence victim is one of thousands of ways these costs find their way into the system,. Treating indigent street offenders in the ER for gunshot wounds jacks up everyone’s insurance premiums. The world is full of nuances, but you have to be smart enough to make the connections. I think you’re smart enough but I also think you are just trying to argue.

I also mentioned that this would be my solution if I were tasked to come up with one. In reality, I don’t care who owns a gun, because mostly people who own guns only end up hurting themselves, friends and loved ones (look up the numbers yourself on that). It’s the natural place for people who seek that place by handling things they can get hurt with, and in so doing, they are simply playing out natural selection in my opinion. And people who aren’t smart enough to make the connections on gun violence are finding their place every day. They are simply playing out their role. It’s not up to me to change that.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gorgias]

You are wrong on both counts. While some suicides will remain, it is undeniable that the difficulty in carrying out a suicide is a strong deterrent from actually doing it.

Awesome! So, then, you would predict that, in places where gun ownership is restricted, there will be a lower rate of suicides, right? Let’s look at global suicide rates:
Japan: 21.7 per 100K people
Russia: 19.6
Austria: 15.45
France: 14.7
USA: 12.0
UK: 11.8
Canada: 11.5
Australia: 10.0

Hmm… gun control in Japan, Russia, Austria and France results in greater suicide rates than found in the U.S.; and gun control in the UK, Canada, and Australia results in negligably lower suicide rates than found in the U.S.

Yep… gun control certainly eliminates suicide! Except that… it doesn’t.

And the amount of law enforcement actions is a consequence of the need for such actions. Reduction in guns will certainly reduce the need for law enforcement to use their guns.

Outstanding! So… then we’d expect that, in states in which it is more difficult to obtain guns, there will be lower rates of killing by law enforcement in the performance of their duties… right?

OK: let’s look at two sources – the FBI’s statistics on numbers of arrests and the DOJ’s statistics on numbers of arrest-related deaths. All things being equal, stricter gun control states should have lower arrest-related death ratios than those in states in which it is easier to obtain a gun. Let’s look at 2009, since that’s the most recent year for the DOJ statistics.

Strict Gun control states:

CA: 119 arrest-related deaths / 1228185 arrests (.01%)
NY: 41 / 39453 (.1%) (* NYC didn’t provide data for 2009, so I’m using the 2008 data)
NJ: 15 / 328432 (.005%)

‘Gun-friendly’ states:

AL: 3 / 1918 (.16%)
AZ: 18 / 32428 (.056%)
FL: 90 / 960086 (.01%)
TX: 98 / 1009136 (.01%)

So, let’s rank 'em:
AL (gun friendly)
NY (gun adverse)
AZ (friendly)
FL (friendly), TX (friendly), CA (adverse)
NJ (adverse)

Nope… it sure doesn’t look like gun-friendly states tend to cause greater numbers of law-enforcement homicides.

So… statistics seem to say that your arguments are going 0-for-2…

 

[Gorgias]

The law enforcement costs were confined to law enforcement action in reaction to offenders who were using firearms.

Outstanding! Would you please provide a reference to your citation, demonstrating this caveat?

All costs are paid collectively like any other cost, whether directly or indirectly.

Except that you’re proposing a gun buy-back. That isn’t paid “collectively”; that’s paid directly, in real dollars, by a particular source.

There is only one sort of dollar. Every inch of productivity lost costs the system, and every component of the system has ripple effects on the next.

Great. So, you’re proposing that people turn in their guns, and wait till the money ‘ripples back’ to them? Riiight…! Otherwise, you’re saying that state or federal budgets should add $30 billion to the ‘expenditures’ side of the budget, in the hopes that, down the line, the money will trickle back in savings. Really? REALLY???

Paying survivors social security benefits to the wife and children of a gun violence victim is one of thousands of ways these costs find their way into the system,.

Great: when “the system” bucks up tens of billions of dollars for a buy-back, we can talk. Until then, it’s really just an exercise in hand-waving: you contend that a real-dollar outlay will result in soft-dollar savings. You realize that this isn’t a reasonable ROI argument, right?

The world is full of nuances, but you have to be smart enough to make the connections.

That’s the problem with your scheme, though: you’re asking for real money to flow from budgets, in the hope that it will ‘nuance’ its way, through nebulous connections, to cost savings. That’s nice, and awfully optimistic, but budgets don’t work by optimism and nuance. At least, good budgets don’t.

I think you’re smart enough but I also think you are just trying to argue.

Nah… I’m just challenging you to make arguments based on hard data, rather than on conjecture. You make a compelling case that a gun buy-back might work; but, I would argue, that for a tens-of-billions-of-dollars outlay that flies in the face of constitutional rights, you’d need to show a stronger case than “this should work” because “smart people” can “make the connections”…

I also mentioned that this would be my solution if I were tasked to come up with one.

Fair enough. Yet, if it’s unworkable, it’s not much of a potential solution.

people who own guns only end up hurting themselves, friends and loved ones

And people who aren’t smart enough to make the connections on gun violence are finding their place every day. They are simply playing out their role.

Again, ‘hand waving’. If you want to characterize your assertions as ‘opinion’, that’s fair enough. But, to claim that you’re making statements that reflect reality… well, you have to be able to back them up. So far, you haven’t done so, although you’ve done a bang-up job of implying that reasonable and smart people will agree with you, and unreasonable, stupid, darwin-award-winning people will disagree with you. Your arguments make all True Scotsmen proud…!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Awesome! So, then, you would predict that, in places where gun ownership is restricted, there will be a lower rate of suicides, right?

No, that is a misapplication of statistics. Statistics only show correlation. They do not prove causation. In the particular case you cited, there are more reasonable explanations for those statistics than the one you assumed. By comparing different countries, you ignore the obvious fact that conditions of the culture can affect both the suicide rate and gun ownership. Countries with more social pressure to succeed are more likely to produce depressed people who might consider suicide. And societies with those higher social pressures also produce more crime, which leads to more gun control. So it is not surprising at all that counties with higher suicide rates are also countries that happen to have stricter gun control laws. That does not mean that if you went into Japan are removed restrictions on guns that people would stop killing themselves. Your stats suggest nothing at all.

Outstanding! So… then we’d expect that, in states in which it is more difficult to obtain guns, there will be lower rates of killing by law enforcement in the performance of their duties… right?

Absolutely not. You make the same mistake interpreting statistics here too. The most reasonable causal relationship is this: States with higher population density have more crime just because of the density of people. Higher crime means more occasion for killing in the course of law enforcement. Higher crime and high population density also leads to stricter gun control as a response. So again you confuse cause and effect, which is why the stats you cited do not prove what you think they prove.

 

[Gorgias]

No, that is a misapplication of statistics. Statistics only show correlation. They do not prove causation.

Fair enough. So then, since I’ve demonstrated that there is not correlation, we can conclude there’s not causation. Thanks for making my case.

In the particular case you cited, there are more reasonable explanations for those statistics than the one you assumed. By comparing different countries, you ignore the obvious fact that conditions of the culture can affect both the suicide rate and gun ownership. Countries with more social pressure to succeed are more likely to produce depressed people who might consider suicide.

I see. In other words, America is a utopia plagued with guns, whereas other countries are rife with social pressure which causes people to kill themselves.

And societies with those higher social pressures also produce more crime, which leads to more gun control. So it is not surprising at all that counties with higher suicide rates are also countries that happen to have stricter gun control laws.

Wow. Talk about circular reasoning…

That does not mean that if you went into Japan are removed restrictions on guns that people would stop killing themselves.

Not quite sure what you’re saying here, since you’re not expressing yourself well. Would you mind trying again, because this sentence is an epic fail…

Absolutely not. You make the same mistake interpreting statistics here too. The most reasonable causal relationship is this: States with higher population density have more crime just because of the density of people.

Awesome: therefore, what you’re saying is that gun ownership doesn’t cause crime, population density does. So… why are we proposing unilateral gun control, aside from population density considerations?

Higher crime means more occasion for killing in the course of law enforcement.

No – you made the case that gun possession, not population density, causes law enforcement homicides. Now that I’ve provided statistics that show that this is not the case, you’re changing your claim. If the issue is population density, can you demonstrate that greater population density – aside from gun issues – causes law enforcement gun homicide?

Higher crime and high population density also leads to stricter gun control as a response.

And yet, ‘stricter gun control’ doesn’t help. Do you really want to get into a debate about how bad gun violence in Chicago is, in the face of its strict gun control legislation? That is, do you really want to discuss how poorly gun control works?

 

[Rau]

The Constitution was written to promote the general welfare. Defending it is a noble duty.

Actually, this notion of “protecting the constitution” is a much misused idea. The constitution is not akin to the deposit of religious belief. It is a servant of the people and should move with the people to serve them in the best way it can at every point in time. Provisions that were wise and appropriate at one point in time may do us a disservice at a later time.

So give the constitution the respect it deserves, but do not revere it. See to it that it moves with the times and continues to serve the people. A provision of the constitution deserves respect for the good it embodies today, not merely because it is written in the Constitution.

 

[LongingSoul]

Our news is reporting that the two people that shot the police officers in Las Vegas, were basically acting against the unconstitutional authority of the police.

"Among the clues: a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag and a Nazi swastika the couple placed on one of the police officers they ambushed Sunday at a pizza restaurant. They pinned onto the other officer’s body a note saying something to the effect of “this is the beginning of the revolution,” "

edition.cnn.com/2014/06/09/justice/las-vegas-shooting/

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Gorgias;Outstanding! Would you please provide a reference to your citation, demonstrating this caveat?

Good morning Gorgias: I did in fact provide my sources. You are free to check them.

Except that you’re proposing a gun buy-back. That isn’t paid “collectively”; that’s paid directly, in real dollars, by a particular source.

Everything is paid for collectively. Right now, society is paying for the foolishness of gun owners in many ways.

Great. So, you’re proposing that people turn in their guns, and wait till the money ‘ripples back’ to them? Riiight…! Otherwise, you’re saying that state or federal budgets should add $30 billion to the ‘expenditures’ side of the budget, in the hopes that, down the line, the money will trickle back in savings. Really? REALLY???

Really.

Great: when “the system” bucks up tens of billions of dollars for a buy-back, we can talk. Until then, it’s really just an exercise in hand-waving: you contend that a real-dollar outlay will result in soft-dollar savings. You realize that this isn’t a reasonable ROI argument, right?

Improving society and advancing the condition of humankind could be seen by some as a return on investment.

That’s the problem with your scheme, though: you’re asking for real money to flow from budgets, in the hope that it will ‘nuance’ its way, through nebulous connections, to cost savings. That’s nice, and awfully optimistic, but budgets don’t work by optimism and nuance. At least, good budgets don’t.

We pay taxes to get jobs done and to get things accomplished. This is a job that needs to be done and should be accomplished, no less than infrastructure and education.

Nah… I’m just challenging you to make arguments based on hard data, rather than on conjecture. You make a compelling case that a gun buy-back might work; but, I would argue, that for a tens-of-billions-of-dollars outlay that flies in the face of constitutional rights, you’d need to show a stronger case than “this should work” because “smart people” can “make the connections”…

When I give you hard data, you don’t seem to make the connections.

Again, ‘hand waving’. If you want to characterize your assertions as ‘opinion’, that’s fair enough. But, to claim that you’re making statements that reflect reality… well, you have to be able to back them up. So far, you haven’t done so, although you’ve done a bang-up job of implying that reasonable and smart people will agree with you, and unreasonable, stupid, darwin-award-winning people will disagree with you. Your arguments make all True Scotsmen proud…!

Darwin Awards make fun of people’s misfortunes. I do not believe that intelligence is a matter of good or bad fortune. They are simply levels on which we exist, and I do not favor more intelligent people over less intelligent people, although I think everyone should apply what intelligence they have to the best of their ability. By inviting you to do that, I am not calling you dumb.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Fair enough. So then, since I’ve demonstrated that there is not correlation, we can conclude there’s not causation.

Wrong. Your side claims that gun ownership does not cause gun violence. The other side claims that it does. In an effort to prove the other side wrong, you presented some statistics of different countries and different states, which made no attempt to keep other factors constant that might affect the outcome (such as culture, population density, etc.) Therefore the outcome that you thought was so damning to the other side’s claim is actually irrelevant. If you really wanted to prove your point you would present statistics on two countries or states that were as similar as possible in every aspect that might affect gun violence, except for the degree of gun control.

I see. In other words, America is a utopia plagued with guns, whereas other countries are rife with social pressure which causes people to kill themselves.

What is so surprising about social pressures increasing suicides?

Wow. Talk about circular reasoning…

There is no circular reasoning in this:

1. Social pressures and population density → more crime (committed with guns)
2. More gun crime → pressure from public to respond
3. Public pressure → more gun control
4. Social pressures and population density → anxiety
5. Anxiety → depression
6. Depression → suicide

Therefore we have two chains of reasoning that both start from social pressures and population density. These chains conclude with more gun control and more suicides. This explains your statistics in a way that does not comment about the effect of guns on suicide one way or the other. The only point was to disprove your assertion that your statistics showed that availability of guns could not possibly contribute to the suicide rate. Now my reasoning does not show that it does so contribute either. That question is untouched by these exercises. But common sense deduction would conclude that when suicide is easy, more borderline people will do it.

Not quite sure what you’re saying here, since you’re not expressing yourself well. Would you mind trying again,…

Certainly. You presented statistics that seemed to show that countries (like Japan) with tight restrictions on guns also had a high suicide rate. The implication was that far from gun availability causing suicides, it was actually preventing some of them. I disputed that implication, and the statement you could not understand was simply a restatement of my objection to that implication.

Awesome: therefore, what you’re saying is that gun ownership doesn’t cause crime, population density does.

I am saying no such thing. Crime is caused by a number of factors, population density and gun availability being two of them. Since it would be unethical to euthanize half the population to reduce population density, that factor must simply be accepted. But the gun availability factor is something that we might do something about. So it is natural to consider remedies that are possible over those that are not.

No – you made the case that gun possession, not population density, causes law enforcement homicides. Now that I’ve provided statistics that show that this is not the case,…

…as I have shown already, your statistics do not prove that point…

…you’re changing your claim. If the issue is population density, can you demonstrate that greater population density – aside from gun issues – causes law enforcement gun homicide?

As I said before, several factors go into gun violence and gun crime. Some of those factors are beyond our control. Some may not be. As for proving that point with statistics, it would an unethical experiment to demonstrate that point conclusively. I have only my common sense deductions to go up against your common sense deductions.

And yet, ‘stricter gun control’ doesn’t help. Do you really want to get into a debate about how bad gun violence in Chicago is, in the face of its strict gun control legislation? That is, do you really want to discuss how poorly gun control works?

You are once again trying to misuse statistics on gun violence in Chicago to prove your point. Let me give you an analogy.

Suppose we were trying to prove whether or not penicillin cures tonsillitis. I say that it is generally effective. But you point out that in people who are getting penicillin, a higher percentage of them have tonsillitis than people who are not getting penicillin. Therefore you make the claim that penicillin does no good whatsoever in combating tonsillitis. This totally ignores the fact that people who are healthy have no need to get penicillin. That is what your “Chicago” argument amounts to. The cause and effect goes the other way. Places with low crime rates (because of widespread equality and prosperity, or just low population density) do not feel the need to limit gun ownership. Therefore they don’t bother doing it. If you really wanted to test out your “Chicago” hypothesis, here is what you would do: Get Chicago to lift all gun ownership restrictions - leaving everything else about Chicago as it is. Then see what happens to gun violence. I think gun violence would go even higher, but then I have only common sense to back me up. I cannot perform the unethical experiment it would take to know for sure.

 

[pnewton]

Wrong. Your side claims that gun ownership does not cause gun violence. The other side claims that it does. In an effort to prove the other side wrong, you presented some statistics of different countries and different states, which made no attempt to keep other factors constant that might affect the outcome (such as culture, population density, etc.)

I am glad you pointed this out. The gun control statistics use statistics with highly variable cultures to show that gun control is is needed. Those opposed use statistics that ignore population density. Statistics on gun control are such a mixed bag as to be worthless. Correlations that exist, even when the stats are not cherry picked, have so many other variable as to make causation dubious.

 

[Gorgias]

Good morning Gorgias: I did in fact provide my sources. You are free to check them.

Actually, unless I’m mistaken, you didn’t point to resources that you used, but instead, simply pointed to an organization or two. I’m asking for a citation that includes the data you used. You can’t really expect that we’re going to take your word for it, and go searching through these organizations’ web sites in the hopes that we’ll find the one reference you claim to be citing, can you?

Everything is paid for collectively. Right now, society is paying for the foolishness of gun owners in many ways.

True; but in order to suggest a buy-back, you can’t point to collective society and say “they’ll pay for it”!

Improving society and advancing the condition of humankind could be seen by some as a return on investment.

Agreed. Yet, you only provide a descriptive argument, not an analytical one. On the surface, it sounds great; yet, it doesn’t prove your point, but rather, begs us to simply believe in your argumentation. That’s why it’s not an ROI argument but an appeal to emotion.

When I give you hard data, you don’t seem to make the connections.

Unsubstantiated hard data, Gary. It’s irresponsible to “make connections” where there are only casual references to data. Unless the ‘data’ can be fact-checked, it’s simply anecdotal.

 

[Gorgias]

Wrong. Your side claims that gun ownership does not cause gun violence. The other side claims that it does. In an effort to prove the other side wrong, you presented some statistics of different countries and different states, which made no attempt to keep other factors constant that might affect the outcome (such as culture, population density, etc.)

That’s really convenient. “Guns enable suicide!”… except where guns are controlled, in which case it’s “culture enables suicide! Population density enables suicide!” You’re making a particular claim, though, in an attempt to refute the statistics that I’ve provided: that gun-control nations with high suicide rates would have higher rates of suicide if guns were available for purchase. That’s what your assertion boils down to. So… let’s see your facts; if you want to make that assertion, then back it up!

Therefore the outcome that you thought was so damning to the other side’s claim is actually irrelevant. If you really wanted to prove your point you would present statistics on two countries or states that were as similar as possible in every aspect that might affect gun violence, except for the degree of gun control.

I see. So, California is so different from other states that comparisons cannot be made? The claim was that gun control in the U.S. would cause the rate of law-enforcement killings to decrease. I presented statistics that prove that assertion false. So, the only retort you can come back with is “California isn’t Texas”? Weak sauce…

There is no circular reasoning in this:

1. Social pressures and population density → more crime (committed with guns)
2. More gun crime → pressure from public to respond
3. Public pressure → more gun control

1. Social pressures and population density → anxiety
2. Anxiety → depression
3. Depression → suicide

OK, so let’s look at what you’re claiming: access to guns don’t cause suicide; gun control doesn’t eliminate suicide. I’m willing to admit that this expression of your case isn’t circular; however, when you put your cards on the table, it’s also clear that your case doesn’t demonstrate that gun control affects suicide rate in the way you claim it does.

The only point was to disprove your assertion that your statistics showed that availability of guns could not possibly contribute to the suicide rate. Now my reasoning does not show that it does so contribute either. That question is untouched by these exercises. But common sense deduction would conclude that when suicide is easy, more borderline people will do it.

OK – fair enough. Your original claim was that suicide rate is determined by access to guns. We’ve dispelled with that red herring. However, you’ve now provided a more nuanced position. So, how can we know that it’s a reasonable position? Aah, there we have it. It’s not that your case is substantiated, it’s simply that it’s “common sense.” You realize that the appeal to common sense is a logical fallacy, don’t you? If you wish to prove your point, this line of argumentation doesn’t hold.

You presented statistics that seemed to show that countries (like Japan) with tight restrictions on guns also had a high suicide rate.

Seemed to show? No, it’s pretty plain: Japan has gun ownership restrictions. Japan has a high rate of suicide. Pretty cut-and-dry, there.

The implication was that far from gun availability causing suicides, it was actually preventing some of them.

No, not at all. The claim I was refuting was your statement that “difficulty in carrying out a suicide is a strong deterrent from actually doing it.” I demonstrated that, in gun-control countries, governments have created the kind of “difficulty in carrying out a suicide” that you posit; yet, these imposed difficulties haven’t deterred suicides – they occur in greater numbers than in the U.S.! If you had some statistics that substantiated your assertion, I’d expect that you’d be able to provide them.

You are once again trying to misuse statistics on gun violence in Chicago to prove your point.

That is what your “Chicago” argument amounts to. The cause and effect goes the other way. Places with low crime rates (because of widespread equality and prosperity, or just low population density) do not feel the need to limit gun ownership. Therefore they don’t bother doing it.

Fair enough. Yet, Chicago has attempted to limit gun ownership, and it hasn’t reduced crime. That’s my point.

If you really wanted to test out your “Chicago” hypothesis, here is what you would do: Get Chicago to lift all gun ownership restrictions - leaving everything else about Chicago as it is. Then see what happens to gun violence. I think gun violence would go even higher

Here’s the thing, though: if your case held up, then you could point to a reduction in gun violence as a result of ownership restrictions. It hasn’t. Therefore, we already see that the argument fails, since it’s been tried on the “ownership restriction” side of the equation.

but then I have only common sense to back me up. I cannot perform the unethical experiment it would take to know for sure.

Oh, we’ll get our chance: the courts have ruled that Chicago’s attempt to legislate away 2nd amendment rights is unconstitutional. We’ll see what happens when criminals realize that they’re not the only ones who are armed.

 

[DianePa]

Good Evening Diane: The difference between what you are saying and what Thomas Jefferson said in 1801 is that Jefferson was addressing the practical realities of his time. You are using the same words to address the practical realities of your time, which involve such things as radar, sonar, the internet, 24 hour news, Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, Drones, Stealth Bombers, attack helicopters, submarines, destroyers, a large navy accompanied by a large marine corps, complimented by a large standing army that is covered by an air force. My direct question to you is this: **Which militia is holding down the fort for them? What militia is needed to do so? **
Gary

What you are addressing is the power of government, what Jefferson was addressing was the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE and that has not changed.
I AM A MILITIA OF ONE

 

[chero23]

Anti gun

 

[LongingSoul]

What you are addressing is the power of government, what Jefferson was addressing was the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE and that has not changed.
I AM A MILITIA OF ONE

That’s an oxymoron.

 

[DianePa]

That’s an oxymoron.

How so since any person can individually be a militia unto themselves if they wish to call it that. A militia in fact has no set number as would a regiment or even a platoon.
It added to the point I was trying to make and nothing else.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Yes, dangerous indeed! So you can see why the last thing we need is to have opposite sides in an internal debate be armed to the teeth, each side ready to push their own agenda by force of arms.

Good point. Which side do we disarm?

 

[LongingSoul]

Another school shooting in Oregan. I don’t understand why the people aren’t demanding armed boundary patrols and secure points of entry for schools in such a gun rich society. It just seems so nuts. If the guns have to stay, why aren’t the protections for these vulnerable members of the community top priority??

 

[DianePa]

I happen to agree. What I see though is the same schools that have become targets are those that usually forbid concealed carry on their premises. Those like me who had a concealed carry permit and intend to reapply in the state where I now live have been cleared of any crimminal convictions and hospital stays in a mental hospital.
So, why hire a guard when a dependable citizen can even thwart a threat just by being able to be on the premises with their licensed weapon. Crimminals don’t apply for license’s do they?

 

[LongingSoul]

I happen to agree. What I see though is the same schools that have become targets are those that usually forbid concealed carry on their premises. Those like me who had a concealed carry permit and intend to reapply in the state where I now live have been cleared of any crimminal convictions and hospital stays in a mental hospital.
So, why hire a guard when a dependable citizen can even thwart a threat just by being able to be on the premises with their licensed weapon. Crimminals don’t apply for license’s do they?

But it needs an ‘on duty’ type of deterrance. The shooting a day or so ago was aimed at two armed police officers… they just happened to be eating at the moment of the attack. You can’t walk around in the school guns akimbo as a matter of course. You’d be eating lunch at some point?