3 ms·

Here's one qualified person's explaination: https://monsterhunternation.com/2015/06/23/an-opinion-on-gun-control-repost/ https://monsterhunternation.com/2015/0

Here's one qualified person's explaination: https://monsterhunternation.com/2015/06/23/an-opinion-on-gun-control-repost/ https://monsterhunternation.com/2015/06/23/an-opinion-on-gun... Edit: and let me just respond to one thing > You are making bad assumptions here I'm not just making assumptions. This is the conclusion I come to from reading firearms experts like the one I just linked, sociological analysis of gun ownership, use of force law, etc. I'm not saying a chaotic situation like that couldn't happen, but that can be prepared for, and the result would still be a significant net positive.

subsection1h 4y ago
> This is the conclusion I come to from reading firearms experts To what extent have you studied criminology? How many relevant research papers have you read that have been published in the journals of the American Society of Criminology, which is the largest criminological organization in the US?
- lliamander 4y ago
  I'm not saying I have a PHD in the subject, but reading some of the works from the likes of John Lott and Gary Kleck. Why do you ask?
spicymaki 4y ago
Qualified? In what? He is not very articulate. A firearms expert is not the same as a physical security specialist who can do a full threat model on the pros/cons of arming teachers. The assumptions are “bad” primarily because they are overly optimistic. I have yet to read an pro gun analysis that states any downsides to this method proposed. They do not state any downsides at all. That gives me pause, it demonstrates lack of real physical security expertise. Do these schools even have basic security reviews, district level security practices, crisis training, surveillance, lock down procedures, egress planning? That all requires funding from tax payers. Is Gov. Abott going to fund that across Texas? The strategy seems to be arm teachers (conceal carry)and shooter will either get killed or avoid the situation entirely. It is hard to know what a enraged psycho will do. You have to plan for it. Read the play by play for the Ulvade shooting. The shooter entered from an unsecured backdoor and barricaded himself in the classroom. It was a surprise attack in an enclosed space with tens of children. Total chaos. The teacher(s) most likely would not have time to respond even with training. Even safety officers (with training and arms) have been known to flee (see Parkland shooting). This has to factor into the analysis. Once you are in a hostage situation the stakes are extreme and school teachers are not really prepared to deal with that. Two trained police officers were shot in the situation, there is no real hope for a teacher with a few hours on the shooting range. What are the ages of these random teachers, capabilities, fitness, etc? It is a total tossup. The assailant was just one 18 year old, what if there are two or more (see Columbine). These simplistic solutions fall apart on quick review.
- lliamander 4y ago
  > Qualified? In what? He spends quite a bit of time laying out his qualifications with regards to tactical and legal complexities of using a gun on another human being. > He is not very articulate. What exactly is your objection here? That he is plain spoken, or that he uses jargon you're unfamiliar with? If you are merely critiquing his style that's rather superficial. > The assumptions are “bad” primarily because they are overly optimistic. I don't know what to tell you. It could go poorly. Physical security planning is a great idea, whether the teachers are armed or not. Training is also important, which CCW permits generally require, but even then the teachers aren't going to be highly trained. People often miss when are firing under pressure, or lose their courage and run. The teachers might merely be speed bumps to the shooter. These are all true for any mass shooter scenario. The fact of the matter is, despite no central planning for any of that stuff, the presence of CCW permit holders putting up a fight reduces the the average number of people who die in a mass shooting. It is also clear that the potential presence of CCW holders deters mass shooters given that the vast majority of such shooting happen in gun free zones. > These simplistic solutions fall apart on quick review The right to self defense is a simple but robust solution to sporadic, unpredictable violence. It works despite all the possible ways it could fail because most violent crime is predicated on the expectation of little to no resistance.

subsection1h 4y ago

> This is the conclusion I come to from reading firearms experts To what extent have you studied criminology? How many relevant research papers have you read that have been published in the journals of the American Society of Criminology, which is the largest criminological organization in the US?

lliamander 4y ago
I'm not saying I have a PHD in the subject, but reading some of the works from the likes of John Lott and Gary Kleck. Why do you ask?

spicymaki 4y ago

Qualified? In what? He is not very articulate. A firearms expert is not the same as a physical security specialist who can do a full threat model on the pros/cons of arming teachers. The assumptions are “bad” primarily because they are overly optimistic. I have yet to read an pro gun analysis that states any downsides to this method proposed. They do not state any downsides at all. That gives me pause, it demonstrates lack of real physical security expertise. Do these schools even have basic security reviews, district level security practices, crisis training, surveillance, lock down procedures, egress planning? That all requires funding from tax payers. Is Gov. Abott going to fund that across Texas? The strategy seems to be arm teachers (conceal carry)and shooter will either get killed or avoid the situation entirely. It is hard to know what a enraged psycho will do. You have to plan for it. Read the play by play for the Ulvade shooting. The shooter entered from an unsecured backdoor and barricaded himself in the classroom. It was a surprise attack in an enclosed space with tens of children. Total chaos. The teacher(s) most likely would not have time to respond even with training. Even safety officers (with training and arms) have been known to flee (see Parkland shooting). This has to factor into the analysis. Once you are in a hostage situation the stakes are extreme and school teachers are not really prepared to deal with that. Two trained police officers were shot in the situation, there is no real hope for a teacher with a few hours on the shooting range. What are the ages of these random teachers, capabilities, fitness, etc? It is a total tossup. The assailant was just one 18 year old, what if there are two or more (see Columbine). These simplistic solutions fall apart on quick review.

lliamander 4y ago
> Qualified? In what? He spends quite a bit of time laying out his qualifications with regards to tactical and legal complexities of using a gun on another human being. > He is not very articulate. What exactly is your objection here? That he is plain spoken, or that he uses jargon you're unfamiliar with? If you are merely critiquing his style that's rather superficial. > The assumptions are “bad” primarily because they are overly optimistic. I don't know what to tell you. It could go poorly. Physical security planning is a great idea, whether the teachers are armed or not. Training is also important, which CCW permits generally require, but even then the teachers aren't going to be highly trained. People often miss when are firing under pressure, or lose their courage and run. The teachers might merely be speed bumps to the shooter. These are all true for any mass shooter scenario. The fact of the matter is, despite no central planning for any of that stuff, the presence of CCW permit holders putting up a fight reduces the the average number of people who die in a mass shooting. It is also clear that the potential presence of CCW holders deters mass shooters given that the vast majority of such shooting happen in gun free zones. > These simplistic solutions fall apart on quick review The right to self defense is a simple but robust solution to sporadic, unpredictable violence. It works despite all the possible ways it could fail because most violent crime is predicated on the expectation of little to no resistance.