Donald Trump’s proposal to allow teachers and school staff with carry permits to carry their firearms in school has drawn the predictable firestorm of uninformed knee jerk responses. It’s a gun issue, that’s just how it goes.
It’s also provoking a slightly, if you will, off-target response from some shooters.
Don’t get me wrong – of course it’s better to have an armed staffer in the room, with the potential to respond, when and if the shooting starts. Armed citizens have ended three school shootings (Pearl Mississippi, Edinboro Pennsylvania and the Appalachian Law School); there’s nothing superhuman about spree killers, or for that matter inherently less capable about school staff.
But here’s the bigger point.
Trouble: As we’ve noted based before, spree killers – as studied by the FBI after the Columbine massacre – plan theire attacks for months, sometimes years. One of their key planning criteria– is resistance likely?
For example, James Holmes– the Aurora movie massacre shooter– had a choice of six theaters when he was planning his attack. He didn’t pick the biggest seater; He didn’t pick the closest theater; he picked the one feeder in the area that was a “gun free zone”.
Likewise, as we’ve noted, spree killers (as well as terrorists, for that matter) tend to avoid targets where resistance is possible .Example – after Israel started allowing teachers to bring guns to school after a series of kibbutz school massacres in the 1970s, the number of school massacres drops to zero without any further ceremony.
In other words–The deterrent effect of knowing that people might have guns,Is enough to deter the attack.
It isn’t that what we’re looking for?
Or is that all just too logical for the American left?