Affirmative Argument #2

The mentality more is better doesn’t always compute when dealing with gun violence prevention in schools, and their surrounding communities for that matter. The subjective notion that having more armed profesionals outside or inside your child’s “sanctuary”of education isn’t necessarily the most logical. The reason being, schools that have the least amount of shootings also have the least amount of gun owners. Example, the state of Massachusetts has the lowest school shooting counts nationwide, in conjunction to having a trained officer present and having one of the strongest gun control policies nationwide. According to the CDC, “Massachusetts is the state with the fewest gun deaths per capita, with 233 deaths for the more than 6 million Bay State residents in 2012 — the most recent data available. Only 12.8 percent of households reported owning guns.”

Massachusetts schools elect one officer per school that is armed, given the situation the elected officer does have the authorization to defend the property and constituents. In my opinion, states need to focus primarily on tightening up gun control laws, similar to Massachusetts to help mitigate possible gun violence situations. In 1998 the state passed a state law banning semiautomatic assault weapons, which created more strict licensing rules. This led to less and less gun owners over time, resulting in a safer community for school personnel. Arming teachers may prove effective in holding off a violator, but not having them armed at all may also assist in dismissing any type of pre-existing assault with a student that wants to challenge the authority with his/her own weapon. States with the largest amount of gun owners also have the weakest gun laws; Louisiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Wyoming, and Montana. Coincidently speaking, these failing states are among the highest in gun violence. In conclusion less guns carried in schools have the potential to result in less school shooting.