I think the assumption that a person, any average person, is easily provoked into shooting someone is rather improbable. Those situations likely to make it more probable are typically absent from a classroom and should be absent from a professional teacher. I would be concerned about a teacher who was prone to acts of violence, used alcohol or narcotics that effected them during work hours, etc but those may all be disregarded on the grounds that we already remove people with those traits from teaching and those are things even the most stubborn unions will usually not stonewall or protect them from. Even then, I really doubt a teacher who did have a domestic violence background or was prone to using any substance that wasn't blisteringly obvious would pose much of a real world threat. Stats game, I'd still want a teacher fired who was snorting coke on work hours but I still wouldn't think it very likely they'd turn homicidal on their students.

Let's keep in mind that deliberate acts of fratricide amongst armed soldiers - mostly composed of young men who we've actively tried to make more violent and who are typically especially stressed out when armed - are exceedingly low... I wouldn't expect it to be even that high amongst teachers. So they are safe speed bumps, because three of the principle qualifications for a teacher are maturity, patience, and a big belief in learning and training and those traits are exactly the ones required to make a safe gun handler. Nothing is perfect but as a group, statistically, they're practically ideal.



That's a stretch, he is asserting that most people with elementary gun handling skill represent 'better than nothing', he's hardly arguing that a random citizen handed a gun and no training represents an equal asset to a soldier or cop in a firefight, just that so long as they can fire the weapon in roughly the right direction they might get lucky and will probably at least slow the guy down while he takes cover. That's manifestly true.




Well you're expressing an opinion here not arguing a point, however I'd point out that the original act was struck down by SCOTUS and the revision specifically says:

does not apply to:
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;

(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;

Note that there are already a lot of exceptions that can be used rather easily by an existing state to say 'yeah, all right, teachers who meet X standards and wish to carry a weapon may do so'




He's misrepresenting nothing, he himself states in the article that there is already a lot of gun control and he sees a need for no new ones. Personally I think it is f'd up to make pistol ownership require a different age then other guns, but then I think it is fucked up to deny anyone any right considered for adults after we've legally deemed them adults but that's a bit of a different matter. Whichever, he's not misrepresenting gun control sorts - some of them of course but not most let alone all major factions as you know. You are a very borderline gun control supporter, the others on this site express views far harsher in terms of seeking new controls than you do and I think even if they weren't the majority of self-defined gun control supporters - and I think they are - we'd still be justified as referring to them as gun control supporters. People who would like to ban a 21 year old from carrying a gun on college grounds, even with background checks and training, hardly represent a fringe minority of the aforementioned in the US. Remember, the current arguments revolve around a desire by many to increase controls versus status quo, not a big push for less regulation.



Your list of his examples confused the hell out of me, you might want to retry and clarify or edit those.



I object to your assertion his stance is 'radical' and my own is 'radical', that's incredibly inaccurate and pointlessly offensive. Either you have a very bizarre definition of radical for this context or you are incredibly unaware of the average US citizen's POV on this. We may not be the majority but we're certainly one of the largest factions around and there certainly isn't a majority who would characterize us as radical.