One of the ideas commonly espoused by the supporters of gun rights is that of the “good guy with a gun.” The theory is that if there were more good samaritans who had access to firearms they could actively prevent shootings from escalating. In addition, supporters of this idea believe that potential shooters would be less likely to attempt something if they knew that every Tom, Dick, and Harry was packing. One potential application of this, they argue, would be to have teachers in schools who have concealed firearms or even allow concealed carry within schools to prevent attacks. In the event of a school shooting, these good samaritans could stop the perpetrator in their tracks.
Well, it’s catchy at least. “Good guy with a gun.” It’s a pretty decent slogan. The problem is that it’s not a very good theory. On the surface it makes sense, good guys with guns seem like they are a good solution to bad guys with guns. But once you look beneath the covering it starts to lose its appeal. First off, allowing concealed carry within school grounds seems to me to be borderline madness. One of the ostensible benefits to this would be that a rationally thinking school shooter wouldn’t be willing to gamble their lives on whether they run into someone else who is armed. The previous sentence is making a massive assumption. The assumption that the school shooter is rationally thinking in the first place, to the point where they are thinking about the consequences of their actions. The fact is that most school shooters aren’t thinking that far ahead, or if they are then they simply don’t really care what happens to them.
Just thinking logically it becomes an obvious fact that deterrence is not really a viable option regarding the prevention of school shootings. But there is another facet as well, which is the notion that an armed civilian within the building could mitigate the effects of the shooting. Again, this seems like a rational solution. Someone who is trained should be able to effectively accomplish this.
But the problem once again lies in the assumptions being made, namely the training that the individual has undergone. While different states vary in the amount of training needed to carry a weapon, the minimal amount is the norm rather than the exception. What this means is that the majority of people who carry a firearm may not have the training to take down a shooter. Even if the shooter is similarly untrained, their goal is just to cause the maximum destruction that they can, whereas the good samaritan needs to take down a specific target quickly and efficiently without collateral damage. Not only this, but 67 percent of the time the bad guy is the first one to attack, and the incident is over within 3 seconds. Even assuming the civilian has undergone extensive instruction, studies show that those who are not properly trained either shoot too slow and get killed or they shoot too fast and injure or kill bystanders.
There is something that I should clarify; I am not necessarily against having armed security around schools, especially those in rough neighborhoods. The only stipulation would be that they would have to actually be well-trained, not random teachers who we put through a compulsory gun safety course. For them to provide sufficient protection they would need to be professionals, preferable experienced ones. If this seems like a tall order to you, that’s because it is. But anything less and they would not be able to adequately perform their job, and people could die. This is the tragic case of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, at which the armed security guard did not even enter the building while the shooting was taking place.
That covers what happens concerning a school shooting, but if we are talking about the prevention of gun violence in general then the statistics are just as staggering. A 1998 study found that for every legally justified shooting occurred at a home there were four unintentional ones, seven criminal ones, and 11 suicides. Other statistics show that when most citizens are allowed to carry handguns, violent crime will increase by 13 to 15 percent over the course of the next decade. The presence of another firearm can actually have the opposit effect as intended and provoke further violence.
All of the facts seem to point in the same direction. The theory of a “good guy with a gun” simply doesn’t hold water. In fact, it oftentimes leads to even more death than it prevents.
I never really thought before about the fact that often times the people who commit mass shootings (specifically in schools) are not thinking rationally. At first, when I heard about them I wanted someone at my school to be armed, but I always knew just having a random teacher who wasn’t trained having it would not be a good idea. I think it might be a good idea to have a well-trained armed guard at the front of the school or something, but even that could be risky. It’s honestly just sad that we even have to think about this. In my opinion we should be addressing the mental illness and the indifference to human life these people have before guns because clearly they get their hands on them anyway.
I love that you write about something political but in a way that’s interesting to read. You keep the audiences attention, and even though this is more of a research-based blog, you still hold true to your voice throughout. Keep it up!
I agree with the statement in the picture that the only thing can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, I really think just banning guns would not be very effective considering the gun freedom has been out for decades, people who use guns properly will not be happy, so the only way to stop this is a good guy with a gun.
I really liked this blog post because gun violence is something I feel strongly about. Actually just yesterday was the anniversary of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and it brought up a lot of emotions in our country. I don’t think there will ever be an answer on how to stop school shootings but I certainly don’t think arming teachers will work. I think you had an awesome point when you said that shooters aren’t in the right mindset and won’t be thinking of the consequences so why would they even care if teachers were armed. I also thought it was crazy that most shootings are 3 seconds long.
You do a very nice job presenting your opinions in a tactful way. You’re not totally unbiased–nobody is–but you are very fair. You consider both sides and flesh them out completely. Something that I’m curious about is the argument that “even if you regulate/remove guns, the bad guys are still going to get them illegally.” I’m curious if there is research about this, or if certain legislations have attempted this and what the results were. I don’t know if there’s anything there, but it could be an idea for a future blog?
Gun violence is terrifying and I’m not sure there’s such as simple solution as “just give the good guys a gun.” At my high school, we employed a resource officer who carried a gun, but he was a former cop with years of experience. If my innocent Calc teacher got a gun, I doubt she’d ever use the thing, especially if it was one of her students doing the shooting. We also just never know what our reactions will be until we are in such a high-intensity situation. I’m a fan of how this was set up, especially your reminder that people who commit mass shootings are not usually thinking rationally.
I really like how you use a lot of current information and examples when developing your arguments. It is a hard thing to discuss how to develop strategies to prevent school shootings. I agree armed teachers are a scary thought even if they are “good guys with guns.” Something definitely has to be done, but it is difficult to tell which is the right thing. Nice job opening up the discussion. Good work!