New Study: From 2000 to 2018, No shootings at schools that allow teachers and staff to carry guns

[LiveLife]

After the horrible events of 9/11/01, one proactive step taken was to allow some commercial pilots to be armed.

And there hasn't been a hijacking since, likely attributed to change in security measures along with armed pilots and hijackers not knowing which planes have armed pilots - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...are-after-911-security-improvements/82375474/

Similarly, I believe arming of teachers along with other security measures will effectively decrease school shootings as shooters won't know which teachers are armed and the new study shows no shootings at schools with armed teachers.

 

[HPCadm17]

Saying "No shootings at schools that allow teachers and staff to carry guns" is like saying "No burglaries in towns that allow homeowners to lock doors." It could very well be that there were no burglaries in those towns, but that does not mean there cannot, nor will not, be. Perhaps they just have fewer criminals.

Maybe the communities where those schools exist, and the environments they foster, are less adept at creating mass shooters than some more left-leaning communities that are skilled at filling youngsters' heads with fear, confusion, and other effects of Leftist propaganda. Just a thought.

 

[LiveLife]

As more and more schools arm teachers and staff, especially in left-leaning communities, if shootings stop after arming of teachers/staff and signs of such clearly posted around the schools, we can better conclude arming of teachers was effective.

 

[herrwalther]

And 18 years is a good basis to build our argument for teachers to exercise their gun rights/2A to defend themselves and students' lives. The fact that no school shooting took place where teachers were allowed to carry guns is another compelling argument that arming teachers work.

No it isn't. Policy implications undertaken at the DOJ level take decades of research from comprehensive, cross level studies. Lott's paper would not even begin to be accepted as comprehensive in regards to a national policy change. School shootings are very rare already. Choice school districts where staff *might* be carrying is not a solid basis for a policy change. There are gun free schools where a shooting has never taken place, and that is what antis will use. Lott's research just barely scratches the surface on this topic.

 

[theotherwaldo]

One thing that I learned in Debate Class is, "Don't make your opponent's argument for him."
Small sample or not, facts remain facts and shouldn't be disregarded.

-And, in relation to the events of 09/11/01, there were only 33 Federal Air Marshals in service to cover all flights within the United States... .

 

[ford8nr]

if shootings stop after arming of teachers/staff

There aren't enough mass school shootings to draw conclusions from.

There are problems with weighting in the equations: for example, number of police per 1,000 residents does not measure the quality of policing, although if the number of police is much less than 3 per 1,000 crime tends to be higher.

And that stat my be true except I live in a community of 3500 that has 1 full time Sherrif Duputy - you guess the shift and days. We do get some supplimental pass through patrols from the area deputy, sometimes.
We do have an extremely high intact family household number, upper middle class area, very conservative, very religious.
So what really affects our crime rate. Lack of police presence ? With flawed logic you could make that argument.

 

[jdc1244]

“From 2000 to 2018, No shootings at schools that allow teachers and staff to carry guns”

As already correctly noted: this fails as both a hasty generalization fallacy and post hoc fallacy.

It’s just as likely that no shootings occurred at these schools because no shootings occurred at these schools – having nothing to do with staff and teachers carrying guns.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

We were told that if staff or teachers were allowed to carry, there would be an epidemic of shootings caused by staff or teachers having guns in schools. that has not happened.

 

[fpgt72]

Not enough data to mean anything. The number of schools who allow teachers to carry is insignificant. The number of schools that have had school shootings is insignificant. There is no way any correlation could possibly be made.

In the total number of districts yes I agree.....Now I have not made it through the entire paper yet, however the stats of ZERO shootings (that is not quite accurate) does say something.....One AD, and two people trying to take their own life, one successful does say something.

 

[fpgt72]

And there hasn't been a hijacking since, likely attributed to change in security measures along with armed pilots and hijackers not knowing which planes have armed pilots - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...are-after-911-security-improvements/82375474/

Similarly, I believe arming of teachers along with other security measures will effectively decrease school shootings as shooters won't know which teachers are armed and the new study shows no shootings at schools with armed teachers.

Also an increase of air marshals as well.

And this only applies to cattle cars, if you hang around an airport you would know how easy it is to get access to FedEx UPS, or private aircraft.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

... During hours between 6 AM and midnight, there were two suicides attempt in schools that allow teachers to carry, and both were in Utah, one of these was successful. Beyond that, there has been one accidental discharge and one attempted suicide, both in Utah and both had no one harmed.

I like this quote from the report. It is another example of Lott bending the truth explicitly to the benefit of his argument. Alright, it is really an outright lie. The ND in Utah most certainly did end up with somebody being hurt. That she was injured made headlines all over the freakin' world.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-teacher-hurt-when-gun-accidently-shatters-toilet-n201256
https://www.deseret.com/2014/9/11/2...aculty-bathroom-shortly-before-school-started
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...ccidently-fires-shatters-toilet/#.Xacq6Gx7lhE

I do like how Lott excludes from consideration gang-related shootings. That is convenient. Apparently, armed teachers don't stop gang-related shootings. In other words, the data didn't fit the glowing image he wanted to present and therefore they data were excluded from consideration. I like that. It it tidy and convenient.

Of course, while it is convenient to say that there have been no mass shootings at schools where teachers can be armed, there are shootings.
https://lawofficer.com/tactics-weap...er-responds-to-active-shooter-at-sons-school/

From the new study, out of 20 states, from 2000 to 2018, there was one accidental discharge. - https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/deliver...8071127064094097015009030073031020029&EXT=pdf

Let's get this straight, there weren't 20 states from 2000-2018 that allowed teachers to carry. Many of the states in question didn't make it legal for teachers to carry at schools until in the mid to late teens. On top of that, concealed carry by teachers in many of those states is extremely limited due to further regulations disallowing them from carry. You are exaggerating the proclivity of carry and the safety record.

The one statistic strongly missing from here is the number of school mass shooting stopped by armed teachers in school districts that allowed the arming of teachers. That number is zero. How about the number of active shooters who were stopped by armed teachers in school districts that allow the arming of teachers during that period?

 

[psyopspec]

Also an increase of air marshals as well.

And this only applies to cattle cars, if you hang around an airport you would know how easy it is to get access to FedEx UPS, or private aircraft.

I would also add the passengers as a deterrent as well. Those of us of a certain age will recall that before 9/11, a hijacking meant that if you sat tight and complied, you had very good survival odds. After 9/11, I suspect I wouldn't be the only able-bodied man on the plan thinking that there was nothing to lose by fighting back.

 

[GEM]

The study showing no shootings at schools with armed teachers is from the Crime Prevention Research Center which was founded by John Lott.
The analysis applied was similar to the analysis he used on right-to-carry for self-defense.


(I accept John Lott's narrative that he was originally disinterested in guns until he asked an economics class at Wharton School of Business what subject they thought should next be subjected to economic analysis. A student suggested guns and gun control. Lott claims that he was genuinely surprised that his research upended everthing he previous accepted as common wisdom about guns and gun control. That experience turned him pro gun rights. That would put Lott and his co-author David Mustard in with Gary Kleck, James Wright, Peter Rossi as people who totally accepted the conventional gun control narrative until they did empirical research on the issue.)

I can't speak for Kleck, but at a conference - he did not express a high opinion of Lott. There are several pro gun researchers that have that problem. Using him as a voice of authority, should be done cautiously.

 

[bearcreek]

From the new study, out of 20 states, from 2000 to 2018, there was one accidental discharge.

Apparently the authors of this study don't have the internet. Simply doing a brief online search for "teacher accidental shooting" turned up a whole lot more than one.

 

[Poper]

Wisconsin DOESN'T allow teachers to carry weapons and I don't believe we have had any either. What does this or that prove.
I think we have to be careful drawing conclusions where there aren't. We complain when the other side does the same thing.

True and I agree with you.


On the other hand, it also disproves the anti's talking points that blood will run in the corridors and teachers cannot be trusted to carry firearms concealed.

 

[bearcreek]

On the other hand, it also disproves the anti's talking points that blood will run in the corridors and teachers cannot be trusted to carry firearms concealed.

Although I generally agree with that statement, it doesn't really disprove those talking points because, as has been pointed out repeatedly here, the sample group is far too small to prove much of anything.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

True and I agree with you.


On the other hand, it also disproves the anti's talking points that blood will run in the corridors and teachers cannot be trusted to carry firearms concealed.

Where did the antis ever say this, that blood will run in the corridors?

 

[Zoogster]

I support teachers carrying guns or at least having faculty on campus that have guns. Having nobody armed or relying on one openly armed indidivudal likely to be targeted first or early on when people first realize there is even a threat is a foolish option in a society where guns are widely available and owned.
However they will still fail to stop many things, be less effective than professionals, and you are going to have accidents and misuse. In fact England banned most of its modern guns from ownership by regular citizens when a teacher killed multiple of his own students with handguns. The resulting non stop news coverage of the incident in the Commonwealth inspired a low IQ Australian to then commit a massacre used to justify their gun bans shortly afterwards.
Even teachers will let you down, as a percent of all citizens will, including LEO.

It is a faulty premise to grab onto and hold that any entire demographic is perfect and use it as the argument, for you will be let down. Instead the real comparison is no ability to defend students and waiting until the professional forces hear about a problem and then arrive, versus an ability to reduce or stop the problem while the professionals are being informed or still in route earlier on. In a society with widespread gun ownership any place not severely hardened against attack with multiple armed individuals is handing victory over to anyone that does not follow the restructions and takes one of the widespread weapons to that location. Paying enough people specifically to be armed security or law enforcement is cost prohibitive, but you need more than one to counter the threat that kills them before they even see it coming. The obvious solution is people not being paid just to be security also having the capability of stopping the threat or coming to the aide of the limited security that is paid just for that role.
But they will make mistakes, and accidents will happen, they will also fail to stop the threat sometimes, and starting an argument on the basis of it working 100% of the time with little or no negatives just gives the impression your argument has failed when the inevitable happens.

 

[LiveLife]

Apparently the authors of this study don't have the internet. Simply doing a brief online search for "teacher accidental shooting" turned up a whole lot more than one.

I am not sure what criteria Crime Prevention Research Center used for the 2000 to 2018 study, perhaps the "Guardian Program"?

Anyways, I went to Giffords.org and from 2014 to 2019, there were 15 unintentional discharges, mostly involving resource officers/LEOs and 2 involving teachers (1 substitute teacher) - https://giffords.org/2019/10/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools-blog/

 

[jamesjames]

As a teacher, I appreciate that the statistics are probably cherry-picked from a small and less than ideal sample. I appreciate that the correlations are weak. But it is a starting point.

Teacher-carry is a very unique concept. We who carry have to carry something small and in deep concealment. Think hammerless j-frame or pocket 9 instead of a duty pistol. Not great, but better than nothing. The idea of an ND or leaving the firearm in the bathroom is a nightmare of constant vigilance. The only reason to do it is to try to defend our kids. Your kids.

I can’t say if there is any deterrent value where firearms are deeply concealed and not widely advertised. It’s more about defending against an actual threat than deterring one. I know I can’t outdraw someone who comes to my classroom first and targets me first. But if I hear shots fired in the building, at least I have a fighting chance for me and my kids. And that’s something.

 

[GEM]

That's the reasonable strategy. Defend where you are. We added door locks to all classrooms. Deterrence implies a rational actor. Many shooters are on some kind of revenge, suicide ride. Dying is part of the game.

 

[Poper]

Although I generally agree with that statement, it doesn't really disprove those talking points because, as has been pointed out repeatedly here, the sample group is far too small to prove much of anything.

Maybe. But I still have not seen the sky fall nor the rivers of young children's blood as forecast by the anti-gun people.

Please understand why I remain just a little skeptical of anything claimed or predicted by the anti-gun crowd.....

 

[GEM]

The argument is nuanced. The progun folks argued for dramatic reductions in crimes with CCW laws. That hasn't been without controversy from legitimate researchers. The pros and antis play stat and data games about the decreased.

However, a dramatic increase in shooting would be easily detectable and hasn't been seen. The attempts to show that are fatally flawed and based on regression stats. They have not shown that the CCW population itself commits more crime. In fact, it is the opposite.

 

[LiveLife]

... During hours between 6 AM and midnight ... there has been one accidental discharge (I believe involving teachers)

I went to Giffords.org and from 2014 to 2019, there were 15 unintentional discharges, mostly involving resource officers/LEOs and 2 involving teachers (1 substitute teacher) - https://giffords.org/2019/10/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools-blog/

These were sources for their study data - https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/deliver...8071127064094097015009030073031020029&EXT=pdf

"Our primary sources for cases of school shootings and lockdowns are the National School Safety Center’s (NSSC) report, “School Associated Violent Deaths,” and the Washington Post's database of school shootings. The NSCC report covers all known shootings and other violent deaths at schools from 1992 to 2010. For more recent cases, the Post launched a database that tracked incidents of gun violence during school hours since the Columbine High massacre in 1999. To achieve complete coverage of the school shooting cases, we reviewed the following sources to find any missing cases: Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), Everytown for Gun Safety, and schoolshootingdatabase.com. These open-source databases, in addition to law enforcement reports, and our searches, emails, and calls (including to schools and police departments) allowed us to compile a school shooting database during the period from 2000 to 2018 that we examined. (List of schools and details in Appendix 1)."

 

[Poper]

No it isn't. Policy implications undertaken at the DOJ level take decades of research from comprehensive, cross level studies. Lott's paper would not even begin to be accepted as comprehensive in regards to a national policy change. School shootings are very rare already. Choice school districts where staff *might* be carrying is not a solid basis for a policy change. There are gun free schools where a shooting has never taken place, and that is what antis will use. Lott's research just barely scratches the surface on this topic.

This is true. However, it is equally true that every school shooting has occurred in/at a school that was/is a gun free zone.