Arming teachers? Good Guy With A Gun? Chaff. Flares.
When a fighter jet is being tracked by a missile it can throw out countermeasures to "spoof" the missile.
If the missile uses radar, chaff is a bunch of metallic particles that the radar can lock onto.
If the missile tracks heat, flares can redirect the missile.
If the countermeasures work, the missile is "distracted" and the jet gets away.
I've concluded that the arguments about arming teachers and putting more good guys with guns are not fundamentally serious arguments, even to the people making them.
They are just designed to distract us, get the media and all of us arguing about them and wasting time, just to buy time until the flame of public outrage burns out. As long as we are arguing about anything or everything EXCEPT restricting access to firearms or increasing regulation of them in any way, it's fine with them.
They don't care if the "chaff" argument gets shut down as long as another outrage cycle passes and no one touches the guns.
I think if they righties were actually serious about this stuff they would approach it in a different way than just throw out a bunch of talking points and let everyone argue then forget about it. They'd have a plan in mind for armed teachers or more guards or whatever already sketched out that could become legislation, and then launch the talking points as an opening salvo leading into a campaign to promote action.
Nothing like that ever happens with gun arguments that don't relate to the weapons themselves.
= new reply since forum marked as read