When Anti-Gunners frame the debate, it is entirely focused on guns and keep the discussion in the emotional sphere. However, guns are just one aspect of the three that really should be discussed and the discussion needs to be moved into the logic sphere. They are very neglectful of the other 2: Mental Health and “Hardening” Schools (as opposed to the “Soft” targets they currently are)
Guns are a Constitutional right. Restrictions that you can’t Constitutionally put on the freedom of speech or to vote cannot be Constitutionally be placed on guns.
That leaves 2 other avenues for discussion: Mental Health and turning schools into more “Hardened” Areas.
Both of these sources have some important points. It seems that violent crime increased quite a bit when more mentally ill people were prematurely released from institutions (yes, correlation=/=causation, but an interesting fact nonetheless). I’d have no problem with tax dollars going to fund institutions that dealt with helping the mentally ill from hurting themselves and others. Ultimately, if these people are kept in a proper institution, they cannot get their hands on weapons, period.
Local and state governments already have the framework to immediately address this. The issue isn’t more locks or metal detectors, but a quick reaction of force (QRF). The best person to deal with an active shooter is the person who is already THERE. A school resource officer is a good start. Volunteer teachers should also be permitted via a course with local or state police to carry concealed firearms. They could be trained and qualified by the very people that train and qualify the state and local police, they will be given instruction that directly deals with an active shooter scenario. Their names will be kept secret so that a gunman does not target them first.
Of course the opposition immediately jumps in with “What about bystanders!?!?”. However, such a questions reveals a fundamentally incorrect assumption they haven’t placed in the scenario. During an active shooter scenario, the assumption of total casualties must be made. That means you must assume that the active shooter can inflict 100% casualties when they walk into a room full of unarmed people. Say you have 10 people in the room, the active shooter will kill all 10 of them (what would stop the shooter from doing that? Nothing.). But what if someone intervenes? The shooter is able to kill 5 people before the person can draw their gun and kill the shooter, but kills 1 person with accidental fire from the intervener. 6 People still die (they would have died in the previous scenario as well), but 4 people survived who wouldn’t have previously survived, therefore it is a net gain and a better outcome than the scenario we have now.
Ultimately, this is a very cold, logical and detached way to examine it, however reality is colder, harsher and far more permanent. This discussion will not happen because those controlling the frame are keeping it on a purely emotional level otherwise they cannot accomplish an agenda that has nothing to do with keeping schools safe from attack.