Would Arming Teachers And Students Really Have Prevented A Tragedy?

The problem with this study, and with gun ownership in general, is that it includes anyone who owned a gun. It groups a well-trained and well-practiced gun user with someone who is fooling around with a gun they inherited from their grandparents.

Possessing a gun can be effective at stopping a crime. But in order to have it when and where you need it, you have to carry it around with you all the time. Proper training and practice is absolutely necessary to prevent other problems from arising while carrying your gun around with you all the time.

This sort of training and ethical instruction in gun use should be required of all gun owners, but in order to accomplish that the 2nd Amendment of the U.S.Constitution would have to be changed.

Here Pop-sci goes again, no science just political hack's.

Instead of putting guns in schools why not put TASERS in school with long range TASERS capable of incapacitating a shooter? That wont' make things more dangerous for the public at large as that won't kill and can't be used itself as a weapon of mass destruction in a small environment such as a classroom--or theater.

What we need are more TASERS in the hands of those who can stop these nut cases. If just one non-uniform person was in each theater room on a random bases-just like we have those on air plane flights--or one non-uniform person equipped with a TASER in schools--or multiple TASERS available to principals, certain 'trained teachers', etc it could stop some of the carnage.

To say nothing of the people caught in the crossfire. Which has been my biggest issue with the "If the victims had been armed," arguments I've heard.

I also just don't want to live in a world where people carry guns to protect themselves from people with guns. I don't want children growing up in that world. The research seems pretty clear, it's just some people are too stubborn to accept it.

@HBillyRufus, the reason this study works is that it's looking at a sample of gun owners. The people who actually own guns: Not all of them are trained, not all of them are practiced. Simply possessing a gun will not make you safer, but a lot of people aren't willing to put in the time to figure it out. Which is why, as you say, the second amendment needs to be amended to require training.

@Gman46, they cited two studies which contradict a comment a political figure made. That's combining science and journalism, which is what PopSci does. If you don't like it, you're reading the wrong magazine.

Rather than spending money on training the populations, it should be spent on paying off debt and healthcare reforms. Also, no matter how well trained you are, a small brawl can lead to mood swings resulting into street violence. At this rate streets of Baghdad will be safer than Baltimore.

Teachers should not have to bear that kind of responsibility. Taking someones life regardless of the situation is not easy to live with. Giving guns to teachers would open up a whole other can of worms. Give them tasers, pepper spray and some classes on what to do during these types of situations. Hire security guards and let the teachers do their jobs.

I have already read on CNN about some suggestions of arming teachers only after the have had considerable training and they would be required to use "breakable" ammunition to prevent ricochets. As far as having your gun taken and being shot with it, we already have the technology to make guns that only fire for the owner. Such as guns that only fire when they in close proximity to a wristwatch or other control mechanism. Smart guns.

This study ignores a very big glaring hole in it's logic; mass shootings are not the same as other gun violence. The study directly states its findings are based on the ability of the person to fight back or resist, implying the scenario is a robbery or other situation where they are being held at gun point and the gunmen has another agenda other than to kill. Mass shootings have one clear agenda: KILL AS MANY AS POSSIBLE. Their finding does not correlate to this scenario at all, and I believe a persons chances of survival may go up if they or someone in the vicinity were armed as well. Otherwise, their chances are exactly the same as without a gun.

This is a SCIENCE based publication? Stop being political and stick to what you are good at. I served in the military and have owned guns for years and I'm not very pleased with you taking this view on a science based publication? I don't care what your views are on anything but science. It is my right to have guns and I will use them to protect my family. Also it is not the gun that is the killer, it is the crazy man who decides to use the gun to kill people. What many people don't understand is that a crazy man doesn't need a gun to kill. They only need the will to kill. Take away the gun and he will find away with another tool. Think what you will on the subject but please stop posting political and unscientific crap like this. It only makes you look less credible to the scientific community.

I'm not sure I'd favor arming teachers (certainly not students), though I do think that having a well-trained and well-paid armed guard in a security room (where he can monitor cameras in halls and outside for suspicious activity, call in emergencies immediately, and respond quickly to a shooter) might not be a bad idea. We often protect our money or our other possessions with armed guards. Aren't our children our most valuable possession? At least for most parents.

Also, I'm not sure I agree that having fewer guns makes people safer. Get a list of states ordered by guns per capita and put it next to a list of states ordered by gun murders per capita. You'll notice right away that virtually all the states with the most guns per capita are also the states with the lowest gun murders per capita. How could this be? Maybe it has more to do with something else in our society than guns.

If we're going to look at this "scientifically" then we're going to have to look at a whole lot more variables than most of us are really prepared to look at.

@Handthumb
I don't think they are going to force teachers to carry guns. The current system in TX which ssilletti aluded to has teachers that volunteer, are approved by the school board, back groudn checked, and trained extensively.
@gizmowiz
here! here! They actaully make shotgun deployable tasers. Long ranger perfect i like it.
@Gman46
Meh, its not opinions they are stating a study, a scientific study, now if it was just an article not citing anythign reliable or anything at all and interjecting opinion everywhere like that wolf article i could agree with ya.

I think proper gun training is important for our society, especially if we were to go for more open carry. Now, how about we have mandatory gun classes in High Schools where we teach proper gun safety. Possibly even introduce it earlier.

The University of Pennsylvania study included only citizens of Philadelphia, the fifth largest city in the US. Here is a quote from the study itself:

"However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking"

So the study participants were more often drug dealers, drug users, drunks, gang bangers, and ex-cons. So, if you are one of the above, this study suggests it is not a good idea to pack heat while in a bad neighborhood. For the rest of us, this study is rather useless.

I have a son in first grade, so I've thought of this a lot the last few days. Until someone can prove to me it is more effective to have a teacher throw their body in front of my son to protect him as opposed to having the teacher with even a small bit of training pull the trigger of a pocket pistol to protect my son - I think this whole discussion is based on farce and doomed by politics. Articles like this are designed to convince people that guns are evil, need to be regulated, and can't possibly be the solution to any civilized problem.

It would be great if we could have armed security, high walls, security checkpoints, secure lockdowns, etc. but we all know that isn't going to happen because we as a nation are broke. I have to sell pizzas for my son's class so he can have writing materials! Even if we somehow agreed to tax ourselves more to pay for these things, it would take years for them to be implemented.

Allowing trained, competent teachers to exercise their right to protect themselves and my son through the use of a firearm costs schools absolutely nothing, can be implemented immediately, and even if no teachers decide to carry a weapon, it will put these criminals on notice that schools aren't necessary the undefended target rich environment they are today. Other than base fear perpetrated by the media that gun owners are all like Yosemite Sam, there is no practical reason this solution can't work. Teachers can be both armed responsible citizens and teachers - they aren't mutually exclusive.

Does carrying a gun make you or the public safer, or more at risk?
Lets ask a police officer and a soldier what they think and just go with their expert opinion.
Training? Sure! I have no problem with that. Anything so I don't have to be a sitting duck!
Gun laws will never prevent criminals from getting guns, and what do I care if the guy goes to jail after I've been murdered to death?
I rather have a fighting chance please.

Most of my kids' teachers are morons. They were C students in school. They aren't the well coordinated, athletic, alpha type that suits the security sector. The thought of those idiots with firearms is terrifying. My sons' school has external cameras, metal detectors, locked doors that have to be buzzed from the inside office behind bullet proof glass, that houses an armed police officer. You have to be registered and show ID just to sit in the waiting area. That's not even inside the big doors, which are also buzzed unlocked after everything else.

Guns are not the issue here. School security is, or the lack thereof. I will steal a quote here because someone already said it best "I can't walk into a prison and shoot a criminal, so a criminal shouldn't be able to walk into a school and shoot my kid."

It takes a few minutes for the kids to get through the line and they have to put belts back on inside. SO WHAT! We do it at the airport and all stadium events. That's worth lives. THAT IS WORTH LIVES.

As much as I don't believe that just anyone should be allowed to carry a gun onto a school, pheonixamaranth above is right. This study's data isn't applicable to this kind of gun violence.

One of the conclusions drawn though is that your own chances of being shot while holding a weapon do go up, especially if your with people who are not carrying weapons. If an untrained person, like a teacher is carrying a weapon they're as likely to hurt themselves or a child as they are to stop the shooter. A trained security officer is the only person who should be carrying a weapon around children.

While weapons proliferation may stop mass shootings sooner, I believe it will increase the number of individual shootings. I personally do not want to see a study performed that checks whether the number of people are killed in either scenario.

You wouldn't have to even fight off a mass killer if they didn't have as easy access to guns. I'm all for police or security at schools, because our children are valuable, but better gun control should be part of the equation as well.

I suppose this is a popular topic on people’s minds, but if I try to imagine combining two words, ummmmm, say
"Popular & Science" putting the two concepts tied together, I am left mystified...

Popular Science has degraded into Popular Media Sensations....at least the new title PMS fits.....

I have the same opinion that this study does not really doesn't distinguish between an individual who has taken the time to get the necessary training and practice to properly handle a firearm and a person who person who goes out and buys a gun without bothering to learn how to use it. Of course owning a gun simply in itself does not make you more safe. As with owning any tool you have to develop the necessary skills to be effective with it. And as it has already been stated this study has nothing to do with situations where a mad man walks into a area with a crowd and just starts blowing people away.

Arming teaches would trade one fragile situation for another. It would allow teachers to defend themselves against these horrific events but it also opens the door to many inconceivable possibilities. Students attack teachers every day in this country, now imagine if even half the teachers were carrying guns. It creates the opportunity for smaller but still horrible events. Our goal as a society should be to limit our fragility not increase it. Not the best but a better alternative would be a Taser gun model over a firearm. Though this still could cause problems, it would be very effective against an armed intruder.

Teachers with guns...this is assuming that all teachers are sane and won't actually be shooting students who "misbehave."

Good luck with that.

http://www.rainydaymagazine.com
"We Entertain When It Rains"

I live in Canada, which is basically the most similar country to the U.S. Here, guns are banned and we have free so-called "socialist" health care. Our gun casualties are a fraction of the U.S.A's. Therefore, it's either the gun restrictions or the health care (or both) that's preventing gun-related deaths.
We do have the occassional mass shooting, but theren't aren't many casualties (during the last mass shooting, a lot of people were injured but there were only two deaths). No offense to anyone, but the American "obsession" with guns has always puzzled us Canadians.

^troll

Anyone educated in science knows that you need to absolutely isolate every variable, which is not done by this study.

It seems almost rational that an armed robber confronted by an armed victim would be more likely to react in a more aggressive manner. If the choices are: shoot and run, get shot, or give up and go to jail; shoot and run would be in the robber's best interest and would harbor the greatest chance of escape. Thus, an armed victim would be more likely to be shot.

However, if the victim is defending others, as in an armed office secretary defending a school of children, the secretary may stand a higher chance of being shot, but what about the children? Does the fact that the "criminal" was met with an aggressive means of defense, detour the shooter from continuing an attack?

Though the chances of being shot increase with gun ownership, this second variable needs to be investigated before any conclusions can be drawn. I would anticipate the number of deaths per assault would decrease as the number of victims increases when at least one victim is armed, though the armed victim would stand a higher chance of being shot.

Use gameification.

Police often train with paint bullets. It would be interesting to see two groups square off. A moderately trained shooter vs minimally trained teachers. The shooter tries to shoot as many simulated children before they are shot. Teachers try to save the children or try to kill the shooter. Only a few of the teachers would actually be armed. The number of guns given to the teachers would change from test to test.

The goal would be to see how the number of armed teachers affects the number of children killed.

You could also change the layout of the school and see how this can effect total casualties.

Not a bad idea. Add in a police response to see if the teachers could minimize casualties until police arrive.

"No offense to anyone, but the American "obsession" with guns has always puzzled us Canadians."

As a former Canadian, yes what Canadians need to do before they say anything is to come here and actually learn why guns are important. Beats talking about something you don't understand.

We are great grandsons of cowboys Holmes. Violence, war and weapon tech propelled us to damn near take over the world. We are still on the grind dude. THE ONLY REASON CANADA SPEAKS FRENCH OR ENGLISH is because we slapped a condom twice the size of Texas called Alaska on Russia and protected your ass comrade. We are gun loving assholes. Your freedom and prosperity depend on us dude. You can't defend yourself from a Russian invasion. Imagine what would happen if the Chinese got a military foot in your door. U.S.A. guns to the rescue.

If you don't understand our obsession with securing our ass and yours eh, fu lil brother...

@democedes

As morbid and sordid as that idea comes off...I would be very interested in seeing what the results of that experiment would be.

Apoc: Love it man!

Having select teachers, administrators, and administrative staff trained and carrying concealed, AND advertising the fact would be a deterrent. These mentally ill and cowardly beings are looking for easy targets in a place where they will not be opposed. And if these cowards have to worry about someone shooting back, they can't shoot as accurately as when they are shooting "fish in a barrel". Plus, the slime is going to have to target the person shooting at them instead of children. If the principal had come forward with a handgun and just kept the shooter from crawling through the opening he created in the glass for a few minutes, she would have saved most of the children. If the other staff could have held him off for a few more minutes, they might have saved them all. More than likely, if someone was shooting at the cretin as he was trying to enter the building, he would have retreated.

Everyone, let's think about this rationally for once and skip any poltical or ideological junk that tends to cloud our thinking.

Let's say we have potential rampager on the loose. He is carrying two half-automatic pistols, and has maybe four extra magazines on him. That means (typically) 12 x 6, i.e. 72 rounds all in all. He could be packing an assault rifle also, but let's keep this to a minimum just for the sake of discussion.

The shooter enters the school, and because the weapons are concealed, nobody suspects him to have any harm in mind. Maybe he is an older brother who is just coming to say hello or deliver a message to some younger sibling. Who knows?

Then he enters a classroom. What happens next?

Most probably, he will start with targeting the teacher of the class, because that person is the most likely one to interrupt what he is intending to do next, which is to massacre the whole class and anyone else in sight.

If the teacher is carrying a gun, he or she will have maybe 1 or 2 seconds time to react and incapacititate the intruder. That is not going to happen, ever. The teacher is going to take a bullet, and perish, as will the rest of the class.

After this moment, the damage has been done and the shooter has had his way. It doesn't really matter, if the death toll is 20, 40 or 60 persons. Or more. In all cases it's too many.

Automatic weapons make the incidents happens so fast, that once they start it's almost impossible to stop before you have tens of victims before anyone can react in any meaningful fashion. Please, understand this very point. This is very, very important.

To arm the school personnel from janitors to teachers is a folly, because once the shooting starts there is no stopping it before several lives are lost. The problem is singularly the total saturation of automatic weapons of the soceties in the U.S. Nothing less, nothing more.

Conclusions? Please, people. This is a very real problem, that must be solved. The U.S. cannot continue living in a siege mentality, where everyone and everything is a potential enemy. This must absolutely end.

The 2nd amendment was written in the time of muzzle-loaders, when the idea that one man could pack the punch of a whole infantry company of that time was pure science fiction.

This is about choices. America, where art thou going? What do you want, and where do you want.to go? So do you want to live free, or die? If freedom is defined by having the right to own and and carry any kind of gun, then I do not wish freedom.

If, however, single action rifles and handguns are allowed, I'm all for that.

p.s. As the "argument" goes, an armed citizenry is the first the first defence against tyranny (and so on..). Well, yes. I can see the guys sitting in their A1M2 that they have parked on your front lawn peeing in their pants because you have an assault rifle, that just might chip the paint on the wagon. Really, I do... Get real. The government has anything from switchblades to multimegaton nukes. If they really want to opress you there is not much stoppng them. Least of all your assault weapons...

This topic of discussion tends to focus on tools used rather than on motivation. We are focused on the symptom and not the disease! The side effects from disarming a population are dangerous and weaken the society's ability to enforce self-governance. The question, I think, is what is our society doing/failing to do that prompts these individuals to conclude that these actions are appropriate? I don't buy the "violence in the media" position as there has been violence in every medium that has ever existed.

@bgdavison: What "self-governance"?

Self governance cannot be defined by gun ownership. When would you actually challenge authority with a gun? And under what circumstances can you do that legally? None. Unless you start a rebellion and /win it/ like G. Washington did. Otherwise you are just a traitor.

@Gman46

Yep, Harvard and the University of P.A., clearly these peer reviewed studies are making political statements.
Geez, why can't the information just be the information. Do with it what you will, but don't degrade it because the findings don't fit into your personal belief systems.

"Self governance cannot be defined by gun ownership. When would you actually challenge authority with a gun? And under what circumstances can you do that legally? None. Unless you start a rebellion and /win it/ like G. Washington did. Otherwise you are just a traitor."

The U.S was formed from people fleeing oppression from their Government. How is it bad thing throw off the oppressive reins of a government gone wild? People in Haiti would not be in poverty if they did not let their Government get rid of all theirs guns and disband the military.

@Quintus:
That's M1A1 or M1A2. I doubt seriously that you understand the usefullness of a main battle tank in limited terrain.
More to the point, let us go down your rabbit-hole: We revise the 2nd ammendment, removing all semi-auto's from population. After we have completed this amazing task, what's to stop someone from making one on their own with instructions from a library book? So then we destroy all the books that describe how to do this. Which means we must ammend the 1st ammendment. My question is where do we stop? in order to be positive we've removed all weapons from society we'd have to circumvent the 4th ammendment as well as the 5th, 9th, and 10th. That's half of the bill of rights alone!

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

It needs to be a multiple policy approach.

We need to do BOTH providing better security in our schools AND applying better restrictions on guns. This way both policies can be synergistic and fully effective without one policy limiting the other.

Oh and also more funding for mental health research and access to mental health AND a change in how our media treats these atrocities.

@Gman46: Uh. OK. Now, tell me, please. How are you going to throw the opressive U.S. regime off your back with your little stash of puny little weapons? Because what you have, is little-dick stuff compared to anything the military has.

The biggest thing you might, maybe, have is something around a .50. So what? The government is going to try to take you alive, but if that's too much trouble they will shoot at you with anything appropriately at hand.

And you -will- die at that encounter, unless you give way. Do not doubt this for a minute.

Don't be stupid, and stop living in a dreamworld. For your own sake.

@bgdavison: I stand corrected, I was typing too fast and wrote M1A2 wrong. Sorry for that typo. The point was to illustrate the principle that in todays world you cannot fight state opression with the guns you are able to legally acquire, even if they are military grade.

You are very correct in pointing out that some individuals could manufacture automatic guns on themselves. I for one know how to. You might possibly know the tricks needed. How many others? Even so, that is definitely less, than the number of people who can order the hardware from a post-order catalogue, or buy it from a gun show.

I don't know. I'm weary of fighting for reason and civility, and I get mighty depressed when I discuss with people about guns. It's like discussing about alcohol with alcoholics who have not yet come to grips, or even admitted their problem. Because this is really what it is about. Not the 2nd amendment, but a kind of dependency. The 2nd amendment is just a good excuse, but not much else. This is, when you think of it, very sad.

I'm no stranger to guns myself, either. But I do appreciate life more than dead objects, too. I repeat, please think. The problem has to be solved, and it has to be solved without excuses and without denial.

I for one, don't want to have to participate in these kinds of discussions yet again because of yet another massacre.

I think that teachers should be taught to think like a SWAT team. They should know where the bullet-safe spots are in the school and go to those locations.

Most bullets are stopped by brick and concrete, so placing students against a brick wall near the door will shield them from bullets fired into the classroom.

They should also learn how to correctly ambush a gunman. Trying to ambush a gunman head-on is suicide. The better option is to wait until the gunman comes through the door and ambush him from the side. Giving teachers the shields that SWAT teams have may also help if a gunman is clever enough to shoot around the corner of the door.

Blinding a gunman with an extremely bright flash or some sort of pepper spray or even cleaning solution buys time to disarm him.

I would also advise equipping teachers and administrators with TASERs. Guns are too dangerous to have in a school setting. A TASER can drop a gunman to the floor where he can be neutralized by a couple adults.

Trying to find a gunman in a school is a HUGE mistake. It is better to wait until he comes to you. By waiting, you have the tactical advantage because you can plan what obstacles he will encounter. Seeking him out gives him a significant advantage since he can fire at you from a huge distance.

@Quintus "Everyone, let's think about this rationally for once and skip any poltical or ideological junk that tends to cloud our thinking."

"Don't be stupid, and stop living in a dreamworld. For your own sake."

"The problem has to be solved, and it has to be solved without excuses and without denial."

I think your problem is that you assume everyone else has clouded judgement, lack of objectivity, is in denial, or is just plane stupid.

You sound like you are too emotionally invested to consider the alternative.

If you don't like guns, fine, you don't like the second amendment, you are entitled to your opinion. But don't try to tell me that the American people can't overthrow the US government if properly motivated. There are literally hundreds of examples of exactly that happening throughout human history. Think about Libya, the US War in Afghanistan, Vietnam. Military might does not spell automatic victory.

And don't tell me that an armed teacher would have no chance against a "rampager". There are so many ways the scenario could play out. The "rampager" might get the first teacher they see, however the next armed teacher they encounter has the advantage. Because killing children takes time and attention.

So please, express your opinions, but stop trying to justify them. Because your arguments are weak. And based on your misuse of jargon, you know little of military tactics or history.

@TheKID11

All in the name of science. No fun will be had whatsoever.

I am still undecided on what to use as simulated children. I was thinking sheep. The teachers could attempt to herd them to safety as an alternative to simply waiting or confronting the shooter. But that would be cruel as one will inevitably get shot in the eye. I doubt anyone makes eye protection for sheep.

The question that I would have is this. Even if the civilian get shot, how many people did they save?

If I confront an armed maniac, I am understanding that I may indeed be shot. I am putting myself in harms way on purpose. But by doing so, I may be preventing someone else from getting shot. Taking the school shooting for instance. While yes, and armed teacher may be shot, how many students would be saved?

The comments here illustrate the real problem -- the people who are most in favor of restrictions are invariably the ones who know the least about the subject. Many of the comments are just laughable.

As for the research, there is obviously a lot it leaves out. The circumstances of the shootings are one thing. If someone is carrying a gun (legally) there is at least a chance that they may have some occupation that exposes them to greater risk.

Also, I have seen two instances myself when the presence of a gun stopped assaults before they started. I have never seen a criminal act with a gun. Naturally, the instances in which guns stopped a crime before it started never show up on any stats.

But the main problem here is just absolute ignorance of guns. Here is tip: If you are taking about automatic weapons or half automatic weapons or cop killer bullets or armor-piercing bullets or clips, etc., etc.), please do yourself a favor and remain silent. It is clear that you don't know what the terms even mean.

Just for further consideration, there was another shooting in Aurora the same day as the theater shooting. Some guy walked into a church and started shooting people. The reason you don't hear so much about it is because, after he killed the first person, a concealed carry holder pulled a gun and killed him.

In the Oregon mall shootings, the shooter stopped and killed himself when confronted by a concealed carry holder. The concealed carry holder didn't fire, because he was afraid of hitting bystanders, but confronting the shooter was enough to make him stop.

"OK. Now, tell me, please. How are you going to throw the opressive U.S. regime off your back with your little stash of puny little weapons?"

I'm guessing you have problems with math. It's not just my 'little stash' of weapons but the 300 million some odd other 'stash' of weapons owned by law abiding citizens.

Your thinking is extremely limited and outdated apparently. I guess that's why I'm the scientist and your just some no-name person with an opinion.

@Gman46
what you are suggesting is akin to saying that a civilian population armed in a similar manner to Americans, without governmental structure or armed forces, could repel a military invasion by a powerful adversary without external help.

@democedes
it is difficult to simulate a real-life situation where the teacher would not be expecting an attack.

@wm97ab
could you provide a link to that shooting in the church?

@Quintus:

There are to many uninformed and half thought through statements in your post to point them all out, so I will focus on just a few.

One: SEMI-AUTOMATIC, not half-automatic

Two: I, being a father to a 5 year old, would give anything in the world for those 20 little kids to have a teacher that only had 1 or 2 seconds to defend against the shooter. I think anybody in their right mind would agree that 1 or 2 seconds, as opposed to 0 seconds, is worth it when we are talking about children's lives.

@Far Out Man

Yes that would be unavoidable. I thought (and I have put way to much thought into this) that you could give the shooter a 4 hour window to attack and give the teachers tasks to perform while they were waiting. At least they would not know exactly when the attack was taking place. You could throw in a few false alarms to see how trigger happy the teachers are.

Even with the unrealistic bits, I think that effective evacuation and defense strategies could be tested this way.

Expecting teachers and administrators to pack heat and to be ready to use it during a surprise attack is not well considered.

http://blog.brainfacts.org/2012/12/broken-brain-with-a-gun/

What we really need are t-ray scanners and restricted options for entrance. No unregistered guests in or out of the building at any time.

This research is completely irrelevant...
The study was done testing people in "assault" situations with and without a gun. "Assault" situations often arise as a result of the criminal being startled by something, or after a heated argument for example. We're talking a school shooting. The perpetrator has premeditated killing his victims. None of them have guns...and he's still going to kill. The test should be if training teachers, etc. to use/carry guns is effective in stopping them. If this post left out the idea of school shootings, and focused on random assaults, the research would be relevant. The research proves nothing about school shootings being prevented or nurtured by armed teachers, students, whoever.

Does this study also include gang related shootings? If it does that would really skew the results. The only way to be sure our children are safe is to have armed security at schools. We have armed guards at banks to protect money why can’t we do that for our kids?

@quintus and everyone else

I think it is inevitable that better security at schools will be an implemented policy, as well as other places where people aren't able to protect themselves from firearms. I honestly find security guards who don't carry guns extremely pointless...for instance, you don't see a fireman going todo his job without a fire extinguisher. If you look at how many schools were victim to fires you would find an extremely low statistic. That's because schools have fire drills, and a sprinkler system. why shouldn't we try to have a security system, and armed personell? I have argued against the idea of throwing more guns into the equation for the sake of debate, but I think what you should be doing is trying to back up your stance. I would be arguing more on why gun control would serve as good policy (which is what I have been trying I argue), instead of focusing on why implementing armed and trained teachers or police at schools would be a bad idea...

beyond9, so spending a lot of money to achieve George Orwell's 1984 is your idea of a solution? Not that it would do anything about the 300 million+ guns already out there, anyway.

Just FYI, all gun purchasers must undergo criminal background checks every time they purchase weapons right now. It appears that you don't know what the current law is. Maybe you ought to catch up on that before you move on to making recommendations for new policies.

Farout Man said:
"what you are suggesting is akin to saying that a civilian population armed in a similar manner to Americans, without governmental structure or armed forces, could repel a military invasion by a powerful adversary without external help."

Isn't that kinda the story of the Revolutionary War and the original reason the Second Amendment was written? Google "Simon Fraser of Balnain" for a specific story of how that worked.

That was the original idea. If you are thinking of rifles against tanks, tanks don't always win, and a generally armed populace can make the invasion a real pain in the butt to try to hold ground -- as we learned in Vietnam, as many major powers have learned in Afghanistan, etc. But that's hardly a realistic possibility at this point, whatever.

Would Arming Teachers And Students Really Have Prevented A Tragedy?

In this instance the answer is yes. Both the Principal and a Counselor had the courage to charge at the gunman before being killed. If either of them had been armed, this tragedy could possibly have ended very differently.

This is junk psycology at its lowest.

This is in Philadelpia, where urban street crime is rampant (and has been in most areas of urban decay since the 1980s). Most of the gun violence is thug on thug (related to gangs and drugs). So, in those cases, yes - the victim (loser of the shootout) has a gun. Had he defended himself, the victim (loser of the shootout) would have had a gun (a double positive result).

Half of all gun deaths in the US are suicides. Of the homicides, 77% are urban thug on thug crime (55% during the comission of a seperate felony). Obviously criminals are the ones who are the primary victims of gun death in the US, usually at the hands of other criminals. Grandma in her house puts herself in fewer high risk situations.

So, all this study does is back up the expected results of urban youth with guns living high risk lifestyles verses the average urbanite who takes steps to avoid the bad parts of town.

This would be like saying carrying a gun is more likely to get you shot because police carry and are shot more than civilians, without taking into account the nature of their job.

Do a study of civilian NRA gun carriers vs. non-carriers, or whole population studies before and after and gun control measure in inacted for total victimology.

Im so tired of reading all these reasons why you people in U.S need weapons at home. Maybe you should try looking at other countries for ideas or how regulations work (not canada or some coutry that you saved in your opinion).

Or please at least do a quick search for school shooting on wikipedia. Its quite intresing to se the number of school shootings in the U.S compared to the rest of the world.

Why would teachers need guns to defend themselves and their students if there is no guns to begin with? And has anyone of you ever built our own gun or 3D-printed one? I imagine its quite the hard thing to do even with instructions.

In regards to HBillyRufus comment that the second ammendment would need to be changed, I don't agree. If closer attention is paid to Article 1, Section 8 in regards to the militia, one would see that armed civilians are being refered to, not the Army or the Navy. The National Guard is part of the Army, paid with our tax dollars. The militia are unpaid civilians. The arms and training is to be provided by the government.

Move on, no science here. More political correctness by using a study that does not apply to the situation.

@gizmowiz:
@Kevin Elzinga 1:

I think you are both on the right track. Forget about filling the school up with lethal weapons. There are many varieties and levels of NON-lethal weapons that could be used instead. Also in some cases all you have to be able to do is slow-down and impede and disorient a gunman until (lethal) help arrives.

So you have Tazers (a little tricky to use against body armored perps? -- and short range). I suppose hand tasers into their neck for ambushing from behind a door if all else fails.

Other non-lethals? FlashBangs ... sedative darts .. smoke grenades .. teargas (tricky/dangerous in an enclosed space tho) .. pepperspray(think supersoaker!!) .. Beanbag shotguns .. heck .. even high pressure water guns!!

Also any stats concerning 1 armed assailant against 1 armed defender goes out the door -- so to speak when you have a whole school of defenders -- even if they are spread out.

It irks me that none of these studies think outside of the box for solutions.

J

Given the increasing number of ideologically-driven articles being published in P.S., it is becoming more and more difficult to give credence to *anything* printed in Popular Science.

As soon as I read the line "A 2009 University of Pennsylvania study financed by the National Institutes of Health looked at the chances of being shot when holding a gun versus not holding a gun", I knew what the slant would be, and I could already see the flaw in the argument. Someone carrying a gun is more likely to step in and take action when they see a crime being committed.

You know what a "good Samaritan" is? Someone who sees somebody else in trouble and immediately tries to help them, even if their own life is endangered. When you step up, you make yourself a target. That's what the study demonstrated. People are more likely to get involved when they feel confident of their personal security. The real focus might just as easily be those who get involved when witnessing street crime versus those who avoid conflict. Does that fact invalidate the study? Not entirely, but to ignore the point certainly should cause a person to check all of the other assumptions presented.

Later on in the article, another study says "For one, people might enter an environment they'd normally avoid." Yeah, like trying to help someone being mugged. I noticed that the studies defined the "victim" as the person being shot. How about the situations when the "victim" was helping the actual victim? Nothing mentioned there, not surprisingly.

So is this ultimately what PopSci wants to legislate against? Getting involved? Nice. Getting sorta tired of the political slant here. The mag title is "Popular Science," not "Political Science." I'd hoped that the change in editors would balance things out, but obviously not.

Chuck

first: in states with a right to carry have a significant lower incidence of shootings.

second: if i have a choice in which i can defend myself or just be a victim i prefer do defend myself regardless if i might be injured. the study does not remark if the injury while using the gun still prevented or lessened the chance of a worse outcome (death!) at least, i have a chance of protecting myself! i look down on people who just submit to being victimized. it is proven the women how fight back while attempted rape is occurring have a better 50% chance of stopping the rape attempt while those who do nothing have a 94% chance of being raped and those who passively resist have a 96% chance of being raped. (http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~tellner/sd/Review.html)that's why they teach rape resistance. i think that applies to all victimization crimes.

third: having a gun and knowing how to use it effectively are two separate issues not addressed by the study cited in the article. ask any policeman if he would rather be armed or not in situation involving a threat encounter. ask your self what if someone threatened me, would i rather have a gun or not to protect myself? answer of course you would prefer to have some sort of defense.

our society treasures the right of self defense and gun ownership. as such this problem cannot be eliminated. i suggest that all schools be equipped with dogs trained to attack people with guns. they would be a good mascot for the kids and low cost effective protection.

Has anybody mentioned that it is already (very seriously) against the law to kill someone?--If that law doesn't cut it, why are they advocating "little laws?" Second, both Connecticut and West Virginia occurred in "Gun Free Zones"--such laws aren't worth warm spit. In Connecticut the fellow gained entrance to the school by shooting out a window--so much for better locks--Also, and very important--there could not be a better example to show that first responders just can't get there quick enough to do any good--also true in all the other shootings. What that leaves is the only hope for stopping a shooting in progress is to shoot back. Arm the teachers? Heavens no--But, if an educator would be willing to take their summer to take the Federal Air Marshal Course--(all ready exists, and is ready to go), then I would have no problem with such trained people in place in our schools. Taking the course would be 100% voluntary, but I am sure plenty would opt to take it. Put police in the schools? Think of the 10,000 plus schools where no shooting occurred. It would be very expensive--If you just want to spend money to save lives, buying dialysis machines would save far, far more lives.

Forgot to mention, just above, that the worst of all the shootings (Norway) occurred in a nation where it is against the law to own a gun.
Stan

One on one assaults are of no use for this type of study, with one on one the advantage goes to who moves first or has surprise on his side. In a group a being assaulted by a lone gunman he would have to know who in the group might have a gun in order to have an advantage. If a resource officer and perhaps a gym teacher on campus have weapons the subject would than have to move towards a defensive position or take a hostage to protect himself. This would allow police time to arrive and take over. Either way a mass killing would be greatly reduced or stopped altogether. We don't need to do something stupid, properly placed trained personal or Police officers that travel from school to school with out a published scheduled would make a difference. These killers pick targets that they know are easy, let's make it harder for them to find easy killing zones.

I'm a high school teacher (a good one). I'm also a gun enthusiast and a good shot, especially with bolt-action, open-sighted rifles.

And the idea of arming teachers is remarkably ill-conceived.

Whatever fantasies you have about confronting gunmen are silly, unless you're combat trained. Do you really believe that you'd be able to operate the slide and aim accurately in the face of .223 or 7.62mm fire? Do you honestly think you'll heroically take down the gunman and magically miss everyone else, whether via ricochets or rounds punching through sheetrock? Do you want to live with the idea that your bullet took out a student?

That's just the tactical problem. The implementation alone - securing weapons, training teachers, maintaining both - is incredibly costly. Certainly not "free" as suggested above.

I'm all for TASERS. And as a gun enthusiast, I'm all for banning (that's right, BANNING) high cap magazines. I'm in the minority with my fellow gun lovers, and I'm okay with that. But at some point, we simply must confront our obsession with guns. Solving our problem with guns by adding more guns is not the solution.

Gee, funny kinda article, it makes me wonder why I always hear about people saving themselves with guns, not only accidental shootings. Of a sudden there is this study that they make no difference. Let's look at how they arrive at this conclusion:
"But having a gun, he says, "on average was found not to be protective in assaults." This is the conclusion written in the study: "Although successful defensive gun uses can and do occur, the findings of this study do not support the perception that such successes are likely." OK, but did everyone note that nothing is noted if the people with guns were gang members, legal gun owners, or criminals. Or, just all "good" people. And this comment:" In the study, someone in possession of a gun was about 4.5 times more likely to be shot. If the victim had a chance to resist, he or she was 5.5 times more likely to be shot." I mean, maybe the people would have been shot anyway. How can one do decisive work on things so vague? And resistance meant a better chance of getting shot. But just how crazy was the shooter? would it have gone down anyway? Whew, ninny article...all in all.

These gun free zones have to go! No way are the guns going because the criminals will ALWAYS get guns! There are many ways to arm one person in a school for example or lock a gun in a location and a properly trained person can handle it. Think about it - a security guard has a gun and tries to defend a school shooter, he may shoot the person, make him flee, delay him from killing numerous children until police arrive and the nut shoots himself. Yes, the person "may" still kill a person or more, but "maybe" not 27!!! Stop with all the liberal crap and use our heads to think about REAL ways to handle this. Didn't we just arms pilots and add an air marshal to planes? This really is not much different. I KNOW I would rest a little easier knowing I had an armed person for my child's protection in a school.

So anyone that did not have a gun and was shot dead, and therefore could not answer the phone, was not in the study? If so, that is poor science and sounds like politics to me. Of course those who answered the phone were less likely to have been killed by a gun. What am I missing here?

As with any set of studies on gun violence there are contrasting studies which show the opposite. There is a well known set of studies from Harvard and the University of Chicago which show that intrusive gun laws do not reduce the incidences of gun violence contrary to popular belief.

Popular Science should not put itself in the political arena with articles like this because the science(or lack of it)in this politically charged controversy do not give all sides of the issue with their respective documentations.

In short, Popular Science has revealed a disgusting bias in which they have decided to present only the statistics which coorespond to their politcal inclinations.

Popular Science may be popular but in this instance it is not science.

A major flaw in the study conducted by the school is the apparent absence of clearly defining the demographics of the alleged weapons owners vs. non-owners. An interesting and likely intentional omission.

If the government is so anti-gun why did they just purchase over 4BN rounds of ammunition??

A shootout at the OKAY is not the answer. The answer is strict prohibition of assault rifles. You can not permit every Tom, Dick and Harry to have an assault weapon. I realize people want to be armed in the US and in Canada to protect themselves and I agree. But I say no to the domestic production of assault weapons and ammunition for anyone but law enforcement.

Arming teachers is probably a bad idea for the many reasons listed here, but what is really needed is some way
teachers can defend themselves when these situations arise.
Many web sites promote Wasp spray as a good deterrent, even
better than Mace & is effective at a range up to 20 feet.
A teacher still needs some type of bullet proof shield to
give them a first assault survival chance. In any case, whatever is provided must be low cost, but effective & usable by untrained normal people.
A simple Lexan, curved shield with a built in sprayer could be quite effective & affordable.
Many other simple self defense weapons could be used like:

Tasers-expensive, only 1 shot,must pierce heavy cloth
Quick-set Gooey Spray
Slippery Gooey Spray
Flash - Bang Firecrackers
High Pressure Water Cannon
High volume, focused Audio Blast
High Frequency Disrupting Flicker Laser
Any other good ideas would be quite welcome ????
DJH832

Has anyone asked if the school rooms had a door locked from the inside (like a buzzer door)? Even once the guy forced his way into the school, if each room had a door locked from the inside, he would not have been able to gain entry or at least would have been delayed possibly long enough to limit how much damage he could do. It was reported the police were onsite within 10 minutes and by then the damage was done and he shot himself once confronted with the fact police were onsite.

Likewise, in the cinema incident. The guy went out an exit door and propped it open. But it had to take him several minutes to cross the parking lot, change clothes, get armed, get back across the lot and back in the door. So an alarmed door with an inside lock would have sounded the alarm. Likely someone would then have come to see the door propped open and could have shut it, relocking it. That would have prevented the guy from getting back inside.

These seem kind of obvious. These don't require laws to be changed or even a lot of dollars to implement. And these work pretty well for most situations, delaying someone from entering long enough that they either go on to somewhere else or allow enough time for responders to arrive.

Why do none of the of the TV talking heads bring this up?

There have always been lions, tigers, and bears ...... and monsters.

It's sort of odd to watch various groups piggyback on a tragedy. It must be: mental health, a particular kind of gun, all guns, lack of prayer, violent video games, etc.

There is no US-wide mental health screening system, nor is one feasible. Folks either seek care or their behavior becomes so outrageous that they are required to go. Folks assume a person committing a heinous crime must be mentally ill, but not necessarily. The spree killer may simply be the classic 'quiet loner' who seeks infamy.

I'm really not sure why a particular gun is demonized. Would it be better if Lanza had used the shotgun? The AR-style rifles are not functionally different than regular hunting rifles. Almost all crimes are committed with handguns. Rifles are a very small %. AR-style rifles are an even smaller %. Magazines can be changed in less than a second, regardless of capacity.

Historically, the ban on large capacity mags and so-called 'assault rifles' had no effect.

Yes, we can ban certain kinds of guns, require background checks on all commercial & private purchases, etc. Would that have affected Lanza?

The only feasible near-term solution is to put police or security officers in schools. They have the 'use of force spectrum' training, tools, and arrest powers.

Passing laws takes time. Implementing new laws takes even longer. Assuming the laws are executable and feasible. "Gun-free zones" are an example of a difficult law to enforce. Regulating new gun buying doesn't eliminate the existing 150+ million guns in the US.

Guarding schools will be one step in the plan. Spree shooters are adaptive and can change their targets and their weapons. I'm not going to spell out any scenarios; you can do that by simply watching TV and movies.

The US culture and demographics are changing explosively. Single parent and dual-income family rates are seeing dramatic increases. Folks are overeating, but malnourished. The economic balance and job structures are changing. All you have to do is read the old Harlow studies or the recent CDC ACE study to see obvious problems. Hogue suggests the nuclear family has disappeared, leading to many problems.

The danger here is we pass laws and declare a victory when, in fact, the root problems still exist. In the meantime, guarding vulnerable targets is the only viable option.

Lanza had Asberger's syndrome...

Whether or not this contributed to the killing I don't know, but it would explain the social separation the media talks about and how it relates to the rest of these white middle-aged rampage killers.

As a teacher and licensed concealed weapon carrier, I should have the same right to self preservation of myself and my students as a police officer. The "No Weapons Allowed" sign on the front of my school's door is a reasurnce to those who ignore such warnings that they can do something bad. My weapons are for protection, NOT ASSAULT on others. I would have wanted my kids to have been in a classroom with a teacher who feels like I do. You don't hear about mass shootings in police stations, just schools. As far as your protection from my weapons go, I use and favor the use of gun locks and training in the safe use of guns. My first respect for guns was taught to me by my father. Second, at age 10 or 11, I received gun safety training from officers of the Gibraltar, MI Police Dept. in about 1965 or 1966.

@WolverineKid

Well then we need more responsible teacher gun owners like you...

Unfortunately, Lanza's mother (a teacher) didn't keep her guns protected and out of reach of her son...

arming teachers is a horrible idea and so is arming the kids and hiring security guards just brings in a whole bunch of new problems so just don't you just have to live with the fact that this can happen in America or have gun laws like a normal country also the cause isn't video games for the dumbass people who think it is

LMAO. Stupid Americans. Lets put guns into everybody hand and let anarchy rule. Within a decade there won't be any school left in USA, only heavily guarded private and very expensive learning centers will exist.

dammitmoose said:

"Im so tired of reading all these reasons why you people in U.S need weapons at home."

If you don't live here, why does it bother you so much?

"Why would teachers need guns to defend themselves and their students if there is no guns to begin with?"

There are guns, so the question makes no sense.

" And has anyone of you ever built our own gun or 3D-printed one? I imagine its quite the hard thing to do even with instructions."

I know a number of people who have built guns. It really isn't that hard. Pakistan has a whole industry of people who copy modern firearms in dirt-floor workshops with fewer tools than the average American garage. They do it without fancy 3D printers.

dwrymon said:

"In regards to HBillyRufus comment that the second ammendment would need to be changed, I don't agree. If closer attention is paid to Article 1, Section 8 in regards to the militia, one would see that armed civilians are being refered to, not the Army or the Navy. The National Guard is part of the Army, paid with our tax dollars. The militia are unpaid civilians. The arms and training is to be provided by the government."

The Constitution was ratified in 1787. In 1792, Congress passed two Militia Acts stating that the militia is all able-bodied white males 18-45, and they were directed to procure their own arms and ammunition, to be kept in their homes.

stan0301 said:

"Forgot to mention, just above, that the worst of all the shootings (Norway) occurred in a nation where it is against the law to own a gun."

The biggest school massacres in the US were carried out with matches (fire) and natural gas (loosening some gas pipes, resulting in an explosion).

"No offense to anyone, but the American "obsession" with guns has always puzzled us Canadians."

The difference is that guns are the reason that the US is the US and Canada is Canada. It is as simple as that. Deer rifles made us an independent country.

God save the Queen.

For those who want to ban "assault weapons", I am betting that none of them can even define the term "assault weapon."

That's the real problem. They are so emotionally worked up that they want to ban something -- they just don't know what it is.

Rohn23 said:

"A shootout at the OKAY is not the answer. The answer is strict prohibition of assault rifles. You can not permit every Tom, Dick and Harry to have an assault weapon. I realize people want to be armed in the US and in Canada to protect themselves and I agree. But I say no to the domestic production of assault weapons and ammunition for anyone but law enforcement."

Here is an example. Rohn23, give us a definition of "assault rifle" or "assault weapon". What do you think that means?

While you are at it, give us a good estimate of what percentage of gun crimes in the US are committed with "assault weapons".

Yeah, just like some of you on here, I saw through their cited 'study'. Knew where it was going as soon as I saw that NIH stamp of pablum on it. But you all missed the best part of their 'research'.
They had expected to see evidence on the protective side, but apparently found no evidence of it in the reports from the phones or the police...so how many dead cops were in Philly that year? Because apparently, versus gunmen, they ain't about nuthin. Don't stand a chance in Hello Philadelphia. I submit to all MD's in Philly, that if there were no evidence of protection in these scenarios, we'd never see the news reports of how some Korean storeowner pulled a gun and the scumbags ran, police in Philly would make much better money because about two out of three street cops wouldn't make retirement, and there would be very few children of police in that large city.

Many interesting comments.

For gizmowiz though, as a combat vet I would not like the aspect of going up against a gun with only a TASER.
The answer, it would seem for our schools, would be to have a Trained, Qualified, Experienced Law officer Not a Teacher or Student), armed with a handgun AND a TASER.

As for armed citizens carrying guns, being shot more often than than those not carrying, Judgment and Experiance should have been a consideration. Even if a victom is carrying, they should not to draw their weapon, unless the odds are in favor of doing so, and the prospect of drawing (and firing --- afrer all that is what it is about) outweighs the outcome of not drawing (Ie: almost certain assult by the assailant).

Instead of being defensive to prevent massacres in schools, why we do not take responsibility for what we ourselves as a society, we have built?. I think that for now, the presence of armed police would help a little, but I think that would be more effective and uplifting, if the government provides to each school, a team of psychologists to be at least once a week in each classroom, offering psychological and emotional advice, while detecting problems affecting our youth today. In that way, we would help the children and youth of today and tomorrow.

Home-school ...problem solved.
____
Sandy Hook massacre: Official story spins out of control:
www.sott.net/article/254873-Sandy-Hook-massacre-Official-story-spins-out-of-control

Studies and statistics can be made to say anything. The fact is that a person with a gun is the equal of anyone else. A person without a gun is a victim of anyone else. There is a reason why the Japanese made gun manufacturing, importing and owning a capital crime; gun wielding peasants erased the distinction between themselves and their "superiors" by killing the samurai and the "Nobility" who had enslaved and ruled over them for centuries. Guns are dangerous but they are not going to go away. I prefer to be one among the owners than a slave to others. All of you people can choose your social class or have it chosen for you. Mao Zedong rightly declared that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Scum of his ilk enslaved and continue to lord over a billion unarmed people. If you don't like guns go be someone's slave but don't try to take free people with you.

Most people with the knee-jerk reaction to ban guns (because they think they're dangerous) misunderstand the problem.

The American constitution explicitly allows everyone to own a gun, so they can protect themselves from an over-powerful government intent on taxing them to death. No, I'm not talking about Bush or Obama, I'm talking about King George of England.

But the powers-that-be want guns banned (I wonder why?), so they call for yet more laws instead of seeing the cause of the problem - too many laws. In the earlier cinema massacre, the shooter went to the only cinema which did not allow concealed gun carry, passing by several nearer. But the anti-gun ignore-the-constitution zealots don't ask themselves why...

It's because a gun levels the field between stronger men and the weak and elderly. Switzerland has automatic guns above every fireplace, yet is far more peaceful. See www.LifeStrategies.net/switzerland

Ban guns, and you ban the old, the weak, and the otherwise defenseless from being able to protect themselves. From criminals, lunatics, as well as over-powerful politicians desiring yet more power and money.

Compare the states that allow concealed gun carry with those states that don't, and then you'll understand how effective guns are in protecting the innocent...

Take a succinct look at what the experts say about gun-control:

www.danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/gun-control-experts-agree.jpg

ex: www.danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/the-best-poster-ive-ever-seen-on-gun-control-without-rival/

Haven't read all of the replies , but most seem to be either all or none approach. Even if teachers are armed and trained , most of them do not have the necessary instinct to quickly kill another animal, much less another human being. They would blink, hesitate or even just close their eyes and fire in the general direction of the armed assailant. This would give the determined assailant an instant and deadly advantage to simply kill the teacher and then pick up their weapon also. If the teacher did fire blindly, where would the bullet go ? Possible hitting another teacher or student! ! ! Better to think about posible stun guns and or bullet proof class doors that a teacher can automatically lock from the desk and a principal could lock all doors from the office with an over-ride in the class room in case of fire.

If automatic weapons are continued to be sold , a chip could be installed in the new guns that could be signaled to lock the weapon, wouldn't help the current weapons.

Colin Lecher with his leftist propoganda once again. This is suppose to be about science...not a socialist agenda from the left. The "facts" presented in this flimsy article are disingenuous at best. The real truth is out there, but one must raise their head above the sand.

in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price. Thank everyone

http://3yu.net/cVx

http://3yu.net/cVx

http://3yu.net/cVx

http://3yu.net/cVx

│＼＿╭╭╭╭╭＿／│ 　
　│　　　　　　　　　│＼｜／ 　
　│　●　　　　　●　│—☆— 　
　│○　╰┬┬┬╯　○│／｜＼ 　
　│　　　╰—╯　　　／ 　
　╰—┬○————┬○╯ 　
　　╭│　　　　　│╮ 　
　　╰┴—————┴╯ fgjhrjtrsdgerer

The fact is, nothing can protect Americans from themselves. Excluding civil wars, no country quite has the skill and dedication to killing its own citizenry like the US. What is it? Something like 19 mass shootings in 5 years? Yes, killers will still find ways to murder without guns, but it's a darn sight harder to mow down 20 humans with a knife than it is with a semi-automatic rifle. Safety is a culture, not some kind of stalemate reached by arming up.

I would like to leave a question in the air. When the police arrived at schools where teachers or other civilians where armed after a shooting incident, how would they know who was a friendly or a foe?
I agree with the idea of someone with a uniform and training do the security.

If teachers were allowed to carry a concealed weapon, with the proper training and permits, how many children could have been saved? If there were even a handful of citizens in the theater in Colorado that were armed, how much lower would the death toll have been there?

Why do nations have a military? In most cases, it is as a deterant to agression by other nations. Guns in the hands of our good citizens could act as the same deterent. Face it, guns are easy to get, and tighter regulations will not keep them out of the hands of a determined criminal. It will only make if more difficult for honest citizens to get them.

Allow teachers to be armed, with proper training. Allow citizens to be armed with proper training. Having a gun will not make a normal person into a gun crazed killer, but it will allow them to deter the gun crazed killers.

Did you see the youtube video were the 2 armed and masked men went into a internet cafe to rob everyone and promptly fled when confronted by a 70 year old man carrying a concealed weapon. Just saying...

IN the 50 th I could order a thomsan machein gun or an M1 Carbin through the mail. No backgroung check. Also no children being druged in school, no Rittlin or simular drugs. Also the chicken and cows we ate was not forced grown with grouth hormones. Boy and girls are becoming mature a lot sooned now then in the 50Th. We learned to cope or were locked up in an Insaine asslime.I wish this problem would go away by banning guns, it will not. Some people say we should follow England by banning guns, if that would work then why are the police in Englin now carring guns while in the 50 th arming polise was considered an unnecessary expense?Also more children are killen ridding in cars in one month than are killin by guns in or out of school in a year. As a nation we are going broke, we have to spend our money in way that will help. We need to find a was to lock up the crazy. Also is druging our children helping or creating more problem latter in life?

in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price. Thank everyone

http://3yu.net/cVx

http://3yu.net/cVx

http://3yu.net/cVx

http://3yu.net/cVx

│＼＿╭╭╭╭╭＿／│ 　
　│　　　　　　　　　│＼｜／ 　
　│　●　　　　　●　│—☆— 　
　│○　╰┬┬┬╯　○│／｜＼ 　
　│　　　╰—╯　　　／ 　
　╰—┬○————┬○╯ 　
　　╭│　　　　　│╮ 　
　　╰┴—————┴╯

I am a firm believer in being able to defend myself.

We have a couple of grade school teachers in the family. I taught grad school as well.We are all gun owners.The Newtown shootings have been a recent topic of conversation. We all agreed that there was a much higher probability of an accidental shooting if we carry a weapon at work than using one to defend ourselves and our students.

Eventually the hysteria over the Newtown shootings will fade. In the meantime we (including the Federal government) need to avoid taking actions based on fear.

Worth considering: there is a greater chance of a student being hit by lightning than being shot by a maniac.

Making our schools an armed camp is not the way to go.

I am a scientist. I once earned my living as a geologist. Now I am an attorney. The pay is better.

I once subscribed to several topical magazines and journals. Some serious, some like Popular Science, just as an occasional light read about interesting things the editors and writers could pull together.

I have just made it back to Popular Science after a long absence.

There is very little science here. It is sad. There are so many wonderful and interesting things that could foster a renewed interest in science by the public.

Or this magazine can beat a dead horse about the fact we discovered hundreds of years ago that the climate is not in some kind of "wiccan homeostasis."

Or the magazine can just fill in the ecological/publishing niche left by the defunct Newsweek with stories about gun control, the fiscal cliff and how green energy will transform the world.

Sad. This place is really sad.

Please . . . whoever the editor is . . . get a few issues about twenty years old, read them and then do that.

Sovereign individuals, not governments

This study dealt with situations where gun violence had occurred. It did not deal with the situations where no violence occurred because it was prevented by a gun. No police are called when the danger is past because the gun deterred violence. The problem is solved and not recorded. I would expect this to be the majority of cases involving self defense by potential victims. Did the study weed out the cases of no victims but only armed combatants (gangs)?

If we believe this study, we should disarm police. The study equates the presence of a defensive gun with a greater chance of being shot. Why should a more effective tool for self defense pose more danger? If you are being threatened with a gun, would you feel safer with a club, knife, or gun? Or nothing? If you were being threatened with a gun would you feel safer if the police showed up without a gun? Or should you avoid calling the police so as not to escalate the conflict? Is begging for mercy better? They tried disarming the police in England and it did not work.

I submit this study is patently absurd.

wm97ab:

When you Canadians call a cop is he armed? Aren't they all "obsessed" with having a gun? Would you prefer they came unarmed, after all that gun is so US.

Why is a rifle OK but not a pistol?

@voluntaryist... Wuh? I live in England. What do you mean by 'they tried disarming police in England and it didn't work'? The only police who carry guns are there for anti terror purposes, same as in any European country. Your average bobby on the beat is not putting his life on the line by going out armed with nothing but pepper spray or a taser. Seriously, do you get your UK info from The Sun, or the Daily Mail? When someone says concealed guns in schools should be legalised, I think it's more than fair, rather it is essential and democratic, to have a counter argument; and this article is by no means alarmist or moralising. I have my own opinion, and it's based purely on fact. America's homicide rate is over four times that of your average western European country. That is an unavoidable fact that nullifies the assertion that gun deaths are completely replaced by other forms of voilent death in the UK, Germany, Australia etc. Guns make killing easy. Guns can take a situation from dangerous to lethal in a flash. It is too easy to get hold of guns in America but it is a deeply ingrained part of culture and society. 'Rights' promote ignorance because people no longer question the act if it is simply their unalienable entitlement. I'm not looking to demonise anyone, you cannot say 'all gun lovers are sick', just as you cannot say 'all liberals are stupid', because that's half of America (and that's ambiguity for comic effect). Feelings run way too high on this issue, but the facts are there. You can't enforce gun control over night, but it's a fallacy to suggest that this means the liberal arguement is absurd. Incremental measures can and should be taken. Leave out the polar arguements and look for the common ground. No one wants armed criminals, no one wants armed nutters, many see no need for rapid fire weapons etc etc, so address the problem by looking carefully at these issues that the average layperson, trapped in the middle between die hard Patriots and diehard Liberals sounding off, can agree on.

Considering the behavior of teachers here in Wisconsin when they were asked to contribute 12% to their medical insurance, I don't think I much fancy the idea of arming them. American students are failing in all subjects; trusting the criminally incompetent with firearms would be suicide. Give them tasers or pepper spray or spring loaded boxing gloves, but for the love of humanity, don't give them guns.

I never missed an issue for 45 years until your magazine turned from an enjoyable source of information about cutting edge science and technology into another nauseating bunch of politically correct nonsense and BS. I cancelled several years ago out of disgust for your praise of China and how much better they are than the US. Obviously written by some recent journalism graduate who has never been to China. I have been there many times and can tell you that it stinks (raw sewage, horrendous air pollution, corruption, censorship, oppression). They have not invented anything since paper and gun powder but they have raised the art of espionage, theft of intellectual property, patents and copyrights to a very high level. Your articles on "global warming" are ridiculous in their bias and lack of hard science.

This most recent example of why I will never again subscribe is this article about the debate over whether to arm teachers. In it you cite a University of Pennsylvania "study" that concludes that having a gun during an assault does not make you safer. I am very familiar with this "study" which was conducted in Philadelphia where the shootings were of armed gang member who were shot by other armed gang members. This so called study is incredibly flawed and biased since the study group itself is hardly representative of the general population of the United States and in particular of law abiding citizens who carry for self protection. Using criminal gang on gang violence as your model - of course you are going to show a 4 or 5 times greater chance of getting shot. Real studies conducted using legal carry permit holders as the cohort, have found that the chances of getting shot are orders of magnitude lower and that the presence of a defensive gun has saved millions of good people from grievous physical harm, rape and murder. The ONLY thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!

You really need to quit with all the politics. I predict that you will all be unemployed very soon when Popular Science is history. Just remember during your upcoming job searches to stay out of certain parts of Philadelphia where I won't even go in daylight with my concealed carry. It is called common sense - of which the entire staff at PopSci combined has zero.