I don't imagine guns "laying around everywhere" but I do think it is very difficult to be 100% vigilant at all times, especially when interacting with large numbers of kids, and that more guns in school is more likely to cause a tragedy than to prevent one. And while we don't know how that would play out in schools specifically, there's plenty of data on the prevalence of accidental shootings in general that would bear out that concern. The problem is, everyone looks at that data and says "But it wouldn't happen to me/to a truly responsible person." rather than acknowledging that inattention in routine settings is a universal human weakness.
I think all data should be looked at, and that includes accidental shooting data. However, I don't think because there are accidental shootings that means we can't ever have an armed presence in our schools.
We already do to some degree, Police officers are already in schools, and apparently there are schools where teachers are armed.
I also don't think the possibility of death is a deterrent for the suicidal, which most mass shooters are, and I have concerns about the unintended consequences of armed guards/teachers/whoever in schools if something did happen, because it would then become very difficult for police to make the split-second distinction between "bad guy with a gun" and "good guy with a gun".
I was thinking the deterrent is more that the plan in place by the shooter may not be able to happen.
And not all mass murders kill themselves so yes, it may deter some or that reason too.
And the funding part of the equation keeps getting brushed aside, but in many areas that's a real problem. Our schools haven't managed a successful bond issue in decades. The next district over tried a millage increase specifically for security and it has been voted down twice. People care oh-so-deeply about this... right up until the point when they realize their taxes will have to go up to pay for it. Then it is "cut administrator salaries!", "why does the school need high-speed internet!", "stop wasting money on band trips/sports uniforms/(insert other 'extra' parents/students fundraised for)", and on and on about how wasteful the already-underfunded schools are.
I agree funding is an issue, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a proposed budget including it. We manage to do that every year of everything, this is one more expense to find money for.
And the same goes for police. My community has a single patrol car on duty most of the day, with a second car only during the peak after school/evening period. The station itself keeps business hours with an after-hours dispatch contract through the county. Voters rejected a property tax initiative that would have put a second car on duty around the clock. But somehow they're going to support increasing the size of our (10-man) police force to have officers present in all six schools in the jurisdiction at all times?
If we citizens want something to be done, then we need to do something ourselves.
I know the easy answer for some is to take away a Constitutional Right, but that isn't going to happen. Maybe we should focus on things that can be done, like things in our local governement.
It boggles my mind that people think that crisis training is this foolproof thing, considering how many cases have made headlines in recent years of unarmed people or children with toy guns being mistaken for a threat and shot by trained officers. We've had kids at our local schools suspended for bringing airsoft guns onto school property, often accidentally and never to use them in a threatening fashion, because they're a popular 'toy' among middle and high school aged boys. I can just imagine that scenario ending with a kid dead because he forgot to take his gun out of his backpack after going to a friend's house the night before, and an armed guard or officer mistook it for the real thing.
I agree, but I still don't think that means we should never consider armed police officers in schools.
We allow them to protect us with their guns everywhere else.
