The NRA's argument for a policy of armed policeman/guards/teachers in schools:
P1) The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is for there to be a good guy with a gun. (T)
C) Therefore, we need police-officers, armed-security-guards, or armed-teachers at schools. (F)
Even though many people are reacting against P1 as "insane", it's true. Your best chance of survival in an armed confrontation with a bad person is to be armed yourself (or to have another person armed with your interest at heart). There's no getting around that.
Where the argument fails is the leap to C. C is false because armed-guards are not the only way to solve the problem of armed bad-guys in schools. The other way is having fewer armed bad-people. Thus, the problem with the argument lies in a false hidden premise, P2: no regulation of private-firearms ownership is ever justified.
The problem with P2 is that it places gun-rights above the principle-of-peace. And the principle-of-peace is the core of the social-contract. The reason we leave the state-of-nature and form society is first and foremost to end the war-of-all-against-all and have peaceful social-interactions. And in leaving the state-of-nature, we give up those liberties that threaten peace. Once society is established, if a liberty threatens the general-peace, we can justifiably restrict it. If things are getting to the point where the NRA, America's main gun-lobby group, is advocating armed guards in public-spaces to maintain order -- which assumes the threat of violence is ever-present -- then greater regulation of private-firearm-ownership is justified.
Though I don't believe the threat to public-order posed by mass-shootings is enough to justify either armed-guards in schools or gun-controls -- I think most people are over-reacting -- I do think that among the options currently available, regulation of private-firearm-ownership is preferable to having armed police-officers in schools. Many North-American high-schools already have armed police-officers, but this is something we should be moving way from, not extending to elementary- and middle-schools. Armed police in schools, like the heavy-security at our airports, is an unecessary police-state aspect of society that we should avoid.
Given that gun-control is preferable to armed police-offers in schools, I offer the following analysis of various types of gun-control.
1) Good gun-controls:
i) acquisition controls (acquisition permits, background checks, etc.)
-- these work to control who can get their hands on guns
-- they are probably the single most important gun-control
ii) controls on bearing-arms (bans on open-carrying of loaded weapons when weapon is not in use)
-- openly carrying a loaded-weapon communicates to others that one is prepared for violence
-- peaceful intent in public is important to a peaceful-society
-- gun-allowed zones aren't better than gun-free zones in preventing mass-shootings -- Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Ft. Hood all had armed-guards or police on duty, while Tucson is one giant guns-allowed zone (minus university buildings and some private-property)
iii) storage-controls
-- makes it harder for non-owners to gain control of weapons
-- promotes a culture of safe weapon use
2) Bad gun-controls:
i) keeping-arms controls (locking all weapons in central-storage)
-- leaves civilians defenceless at home and creates easy-to-steal-from weapons caches
ii) assault-weapons bans
-- prevents rebellion, the most important reason for civilians to have guns
iii) licensing ownership and registration of firearms
-- makes possible cultural-genocide of gun-culture through disarmament
-- makes gun-owners distrust government (especially in North-America)
-- makes public cooperation on matters pertaining to civilian-weapons more difficult
Gun-controls of unclear effect:
i) magazine restrictions
-- I have no idea whether this would work, or if it does, whether it's not worth the cost placed on rebellion
P1) The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is for there to be a good guy with a gun. (T)
C) Therefore, we need police-officers, armed-security-guards, or armed-teachers at schools. (F)
Even though many people are reacting against P1 as "insane", it's true. Your best chance of survival in an armed confrontation with a bad person is to be armed yourself (or to have another person armed with your interest at heart). There's no getting around that.
Where the argument fails is the leap to C. C is false because armed-guards are not the only way to solve the problem of armed bad-guys in schools. The other way is having fewer armed bad-people. Thus, the problem with the argument lies in a false hidden premise, P2: no regulation of private-firearms ownership is ever justified.
The problem with P2 is that it places gun-rights above the principle-of-peace. And the principle-of-peace is the core of the social-contract. The reason we leave the state-of-nature and form society is first and foremost to end the war-of-all-against-all and have peaceful social-interactions. And in leaving the state-of-nature, we give up those liberties that threaten peace. Once society is established, if a liberty threatens the general-peace, we can justifiably restrict it. If things are getting to the point where the NRA, America's main gun-lobby group, is advocating armed guards in public-spaces to maintain order -- which assumes the threat of violence is ever-present -- then greater regulation of private-firearm-ownership is justified.
Though I don't believe the threat to public-order posed by mass-shootings is enough to justify either armed-guards in schools or gun-controls -- I think most people are over-reacting -- I do think that among the options currently available, regulation of private-firearm-ownership is preferable to having armed police-officers in schools. Many North-American high-schools already have armed police-officers, but this is something we should be moving way from, not extending to elementary- and middle-schools. Armed police in schools, like the heavy-security at our airports, is an unecessary police-state aspect of society that we should avoid.
Given that gun-control is preferable to armed police-offers in schools, I offer the following analysis of various types of gun-control.
1) Good gun-controls:
i) acquisition controls (acquisition permits, background checks, etc.)
-- these work to control who can get their hands on guns
-- they are probably the single most important gun-control
ii) controls on bearing-arms (bans on open-carrying of loaded weapons when weapon is not in use)
-- openly carrying a loaded-weapon communicates to others that one is prepared for violence
-- peaceful intent in public is important to a peaceful-society
-- gun-allowed zones aren't better than gun-free zones in preventing mass-shootings -- Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Ft. Hood all had armed-guards or police on duty, while Tucson is one giant guns-allowed zone (minus university buildings and some private-property)
iii) storage-controls
-- makes it harder for non-owners to gain control of weapons
-- promotes a culture of safe weapon use
2) Bad gun-controls:
i) keeping-arms controls (locking all weapons in central-storage)
-- leaves civilians defenceless at home and creates easy-to-steal-from weapons caches
ii) assault-weapons bans
-- prevents rebellion, the most important reason for civilians to have guns
iii) licensing ownership and registration of firearms
-- makes possible cultural-genocide of gun-culture through disarmament
-- makes gun-owners distrust government (especially in North-America)
-- makes public cooperation on matters pertaining to civilian-weapons more difficult
Gun-controls of unclear effect:
i) magazine restrictions
-- I have no idea whether this would work, or if it does, whether it's not worth the cost placed on rebellion
