|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Betsy DeVos’s reported guns-in-schools plan would make schools less safe
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
While there is no good research specifically on arming teachers (which by itself should raise red flags, given that policy should be evidence-based), there is plenty of evidence on what happens where there are more guns around. It’s pretty clear: Where there are more guns, there are more gun deaths.
The logic is simple: The presence of a gun allows otherwise normal circumstances to escalate into deadly violence. If a teacher has a gun around, she or one of her students is more likely to fire it — accidentally or deliberately — than if a gun wasn’t around. |
| Comment by:
JimB
(8/24/2018)
|
Another of the gun control groups great lies parroted!
|
| Comment by:
jac
(8/24/2018)
|
I can name at least five school shootings where people were wishing someone had a gun and could stop the shooter.
The present system works so well. Miscreants seek out victim disbarment zones which includes schools to satisfy their evil intentions.
Those schools that have allowed armed teachers/administrators have had zero problems. No attacks and no negligent shootings.
How can one argue against something that works? Stupidity knows no bounds. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/24/2018)
|
| What booszhyit. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
