Carry on campus?

Texas’s Concealed-Carry Law Prevented Mass Murder in 2019
Yes, good guys with guns can save lives. They just did in the West Freeway Church of Christ.
The same weekend that Orthodox Jews in Monsey, N.Y., were fighting off another knife-wielding anti-Semite thug with chairs and coffee tables — they were fortunate that the perpetrator hadn’t brought a firearm, like the killer who targeted a Yeshiva Jersey City only a few weeks earlier — Jack Wilson, a 71-year-old congregant and security volunteer at West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, took mere seconds to stop a potential mass murderer.

At the time Texas governor Greg Abbott had signed a bill making it explicitly legal for Texans with concealed-carry licenses to bring their weapons into places of worship.
If few trained teachers had a gun at work, maybe they could save some lives?

 

18 trained cops stood outside and protected a mass shooter while kids got killed. We've spent millions on police officers in schools since Columbine and they've failed to stop any mass shootings. If more guns were the solution, mass shootings shouldn't happen in Texas (with the highest rate of gun ownership in the nation.)

If more cops were the solution, mass shootings at schools should have gone down as the rate of School Resource Officers has gone up, but that hasn't been the case.

 

Its case by case, I think in no way the shooter should have gotten the type of gun at his age and state.
But you don't know how many shootings were deterred by police, I think many.
Obviously there are multiple factors for the school and other shootings that plague the US.
Gun control is important step.

https://theconversation.com/us-shootings-norway-and-finland-have-similar-levels-of-gun-ownership-but-far-less-gun-crime-183933

International levels of gun crime

Gun Crime in Global Contexts (Routledge), author provided

Interestingly, European societies that come close to US rates of gun ownership, in terms of gun owners per 100 people, (but with hunting rifles and shotguns rather than handguns), such as Finland and Norway, are among the safest societies internationally with regards to gun violence.

 

What's your basis for thinking that, given all the mass shootings police have failed to prevent?

There are no societies close to civilian gun ownership. The US rate is 120.5 per 100 persons. The next highest European nation is Montenegro, at 39.1. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country)

 

This is true. I don't think anyone is collecting data on the number of gun owners per capita by country (I looked but couldn't find anything.) It would be my guess that the US has more civilian gun owners per capita given how easy it is to get a gun, but I have no specific data to back that up.

 

We ask an awful lot of our law enforcement officers. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I wouldn't like to face a mass shooter with his AR15 and body armor with only a standard issue 9mm Glock. It's pretty much the definition of fruitless suicide.

 

Then don't take the job.

When I was in military I knew there were many ways I could die doing my job. In peace and war. Came close a couple times. One of closest was doing what drilled to do in a given circumstance that was literally sacrificial because if I didn't, the risk that we would all die was high. "Lucky" enough I lived to have replayed that in my dreams a few thousand times since 1989 when it happened.

If someone who gives an oath to protect isn't OK with the cost of writing that blank check, don't write it. We all die some day and doing so to save kids in an elementary school getting shot at seems to me one hella good way. Better than for most wars we get into..just saying.

 

But I don't think a pointless sacrifice is called for. Besides, folks, police aren't military. They are civilians and that matters. I am certainly not saying that the police did something they shouldn't have done or failed to do what they should have done. I do think that the incident commander is in a better position to weigh the risks and chances of success.

I also took the military oath and I am aware of the "blank check" that oath represents. I don't think police are in quite the same situation.

 

Thanks to both of you for your service. It's only a tiny percentage of Americans that ever serve in uniform. Speaking of oaths, How many people know the oath for Commissioned Officers (almost identical to the oath of a federal civilian) is different from the Enlisted Oath. I swore to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over me, as well as to support and defend the Constitution. As a Commissioned Officer, Nosborn 48's oath is to support and defend the Constitution. The Oath of a Commissioned Officer does not include the clause to obey the orders of the President and others.

 

Only about 1% of the time: https://www.kxan.com/texas-mass-violence/do-good-guys-with-guns-stop-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-statistics-say/

Of course not. Even trained police officers find themselves in over their heads in such situations. Also, how would that play out? The teachers would not be able to open-carry because this would put an unsecured firearm within reach of children. And if an active shooter situation is announced, teachers would be focused on locking doors, finding cover and concealment, and protecting the children, not going to some gun locker (one in each classroom?) to retrieve a firearm. The notion is just ridiculous.

No matter how much we dance around the issue, the guns are the problem. It is undeniable except by those who (a) are working another agenda and (b) are okay with this carnage.

 

Because ours is an appointment (commission) to an office, not placement under someone (a commander) who has such an appointment.

 

I think the guns are part of the problem, but there are other issues that cause the individuals to commit such horrible acts.
Making harder or ban to obtain a gun will definitely and significantly help.
Unfortunately the attackers find alternative ways when they can't obtain a gun.
The violence needs to be addressed on multiple fronts.

 

Without easy access to a gun, most people are probably going to opt to try a stabbing. Those would be much easier to deal with. Japan gives teachers sasumata to deal with intruders armed with melee weapons (knives, bats, whatever).

https://thehill.com/opinion/education/375723-arming-teachers-ask-japan/
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/japan-school-intruder-drills

I would guess most American teachers would be comfortable using a sasumata (which is essentially a glorified forked stick) vs. being armed with a gun.

 

Dying in an attempt to prevent the deaths of children is never pointless.

The police there were cowards, and their dept culture plays a part in. Other depts would react differently.

 

A fine old Samurai weapon. Also used by japanese police. I a imagine it would take some degree of dedication to gain and maintain proficiency in its use. I like the all-metal modern version with the closing outer fork tangs Practically, I think it would be very precarious to close the distance to be near enough to employ a sasumata against an individual wielding a firearm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasumata

 

A fine discussion of the significance of the difference - https://www.quantico.marines.mil/news/news-article-display/article/611510/the-difference-between-oath-of-office-oath-of-enlistment/