> 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 hum

> 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.