We need to stop focusing an one-size-fits-all solutions.
In South Chicago where bad guys with guns are everywhere and everyone know someone who’s been shot, “less guns” means fewer deaths. (Getting rid of guns is a different question.) Laws, metal detectors at schools, and other limits are good. Teachers carrying is likely to do more harm than good (they become a target for a kid who wants a gun)
In rural Alabama where the biggest concern could be a redneck-hating-nut coming to town and shooting up a church, “more guns” means less risk.
The discussion is useless unless we make distinctions between the mass random shootings and the targeted or gang shootings. And the different areas with large % of capable “good guy” gun owners vs those areas where most of the “good guys” are afraid of guns.
We need to support local decisions on how to best protect their school, not have a federal mandates and laws that make people feel good about “doing something” (mostly people who’s kids are at safe or private schools not at risk).
Seems like in South Chicago the city with some of the nation’s toughest gun laws - that schools are safer than the streets
You gonna tell me the Chicago public schools do not have police or armed security in their halls? Have there been more mass shootings at the inner city schools that are guarded by onsite people with guns? Or at white liberal suburban “ gun free” schools?
anyone who has a concealed carry weapons rating is also trained in not having her weapon stolen by some punk who can buy a piece on the street from his earnings as a drug lookout