Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64
I do think (b) is a fair possibility. However, I don't agree with (a), I don't think there is a high amount of inherent risk.
Unless the costs (and opportunity costs) are prohibitive, all things held equal, I would prefer the last line of defense vs not.
|
My point is: Either you have people carry weapons with them, which makes it conceivably effective but adds a ton of risk: students grabbing the gun of an unsuspecting teacher, or he forgets to take it when going to lunch, or forgets to lock the cabinett/safe, teachers accidentily shooting students or themselves while running the hall looking for a gunman. Or you store them safely in a central place (or even multiple places, which then again adds risk of exposure/failure of the system) and have it already extremely watered down and pretty damn ineffective.
Why ? Your are again not only 1) adding a response time, but you are also now 2) asking unarmed teachers to run across campus/through a maze of corridors with an active shooter on the loose to get their weapon/munition. I'd say the odds he happens to currently be between the teachers/staff in question and the stored weapons/munition are considerable enough to warrant a thought or three.
We just saw a trained professional not being able to bring himself to take that risk while armed. And sure, you can put that down to the person being the problem. But you can also point out that it is an absolutely insane prospect that very little can prepare you for.
It also once again endorses Guns as the solution and not the problem. In which case, you stay pretty much screwed forever. If that's the choice, that's "fine". But i just hate this rhetoric of "yeah, but we'll be safe about the guns and then guns are gonna save lives, problem solved" as if that is a reasonable assumption given the data available. This isn't about believing, this is merely about being willing to consider the facts.