...and you couldn't possibly more wrong, out of touch, and clueless.
Great response. Filled with lots of logic and clear and concise arguments. Well done.
Even with this terrible response, I'll still articulate why I believe that. Then maybe, just maybe, you can respond like an adult and we can further discussion about this issue (but most likely not).
There are two types of violence in schools that concern me, as a current student. I think guns being allowed in school could potentially have a minimal positive effect on reducing one type of violence (we'll call it situation 1) and would have an extreme negative effect on the other type of violence (situation 2).
Situation 1. The classic school shooter. Columbine, Sandy Hook, VaTech, Oregon, etc. These situations could potentially have ended with less death if someone was armed and successfully took out the shooter. But there are two considerations at play here. Could someone take out the shooter, and would that be a deterrent? For the former, I will grant that there are some who could successfully neutralize the threat. Although, if we're talking about college, or even high school aged people, the more likely answer is that once their adrenaline got pumping, their actions wouldn't be cool and calculated, and they could very easily miss and hit someone else, then get shot themselves, thus increasing the casualty totals. Same with teachers. Think about the Aurora situation for a second. Would arming say, 4 people, in that theater have done anything in the situation? I highly doubt it, since numerous survivors have spoken about how they thought the shooting was part of the movie. I imagine it was sensory overload, and I imagine it would be if you were a teacher and saw students being shot.
As a deterrent, I'm really skeptical. All of these guys have killed themselves or die in the chaos (from police). No one goes into a school to shoot and thinks they're going to get away with it. I understand that the other side of the argument is that they know they can have high casualty numbers because they know there are no guns in school. But the same can be said about train stations, tailgate parties, parades, etc. What makes these shootings unique isn't that they take place in a gun-free zone, IMO.
Situation 2. This is where gun supporters totally lose me, and where I was going with my previous post. As people have so astutely pointed out, mass shootings are less than 1% of the gun deaths in America each year. So, obviously everyday violence is the bigger issue. Well, when guns are introduced as an element into everyday situations, inherently there is going to be a greater chance for violence. If me, you, WWJD, and YS are out having beers, and none of us are packing heat, and some guy walks in and describes how he defiled your wife, well, there's probably gonna be a scuffle. If, however, you are packing heat, the chances of you losing your mind and pulling the gun on him/shooting at him go up by infinity. That's why guns on college campuses are a terrible idea. Because they increase the chances for gun violence and gun death. Especially in places where alcohol, drugs, and hurt feelings are ever present.
And you don't have to be a genius to figure out what the consumers would want in this situation. College kids don't want other college kids carrying a gun in class. I'll take my chances that I go to school with the next mass shooter, and he or she just happens to be in one of my classes, over the reality where I look around at a 40 person class and wonder how many people in there could kill me in an instant. That's not a healthy learning environment.
