“If we can save just one child”
That is one of the key sayings of the left’s pro gun control argument.
I don’t think anyone can disagree that one child’s life lost, due to any kind of violence, isn’t horrible. It just so happens that Eric Dietz, a PH.D. and professor at Purdue University and director of the school’s Homeland Security Institute also agrees, but I doubt the gun grabbers are going to be happy about what he has to say about it.
What has professor Dietz done that is going to have the left’s feathers ruffled? Simple.. He used factual data to run a study that proves more guns in schools make for a safer environment for the children.
Now this is nothing new to those who do anything more than listen to the propaganda from the president and the rest of the gun grabbers, but how did Dietz come up with this answer?
At the 2014 National Rifle Association convention in Indianapolis on Friday, Dietz told TheBlaze that he set out to determine what realistic measures could be taken to reduce deaths during school shootings. Using an “agent-based modeling” method that he says is as straight forward as it gets, Dietz and the university were able to conclude that the “introduction of a minimal (10%) armed faculty in conjunction with a resource officer” could reduce overall casualties in school-related shootings by roughly 70 percent.
We know that “gun free zones” are where criminals and crazies choose to go when they want helpless victims. In fact, since the 1950’s, all but two “mass shootings” took place in areas that people were left defenseless because they were in a place that did not allow them to carry firearms. This further proves that “gun free zones” do not act as crime free zones, but more like free for all shooting galleries for those people who would wish to do harm to others.
The proof that ”gun free zones” do not work, Dietz used four very simple scenarios in is research.
- No access to control or security.
- Resource officer (security/police)
- 5-10 percent of work force has concealed carry
- 5-10 percent of work force has concealed carry and a resource officer
In scenario one, the staff and children have to rely on the 10-12 minute response time of police. According to statistics, an “active shooter” shoots someone approximately every 20 seconds. That makes for approximately 30-36 dead people when you consider the police response time of 12 minutes.
So what does scenarios 2, 3 and 4 get us?
In the scenario where there is an armed resource officer, casualties dropped by 66.5 percent and response time was cut 59.5 percent. When five percent of teachers were carrying concealed weapons, deaths were reduced by 6.8 percent and response time dropped by 5.4 percent. When 10 percent of teachers were carrying concealed weapons, casualties fell by 23.2 percent and response time went down 16.8 percent.
If that is not enough to calm the “it’s about the children” crowd, scenario four shows the real difference.
In scenario four, where five percent of teachers were carrying concealed guns and a resource officer was present, casualties dropped an astonishing 69.2 percent and response time dropped 59.7 percent. Finally, when 10 percent of teachers were carrying concealed firearms and a resource officer was present, casualties fell by 70.2 percent and response time was reduced by 62.7 percent.
This means that if a mere 10 percent of the teachers at Sandy Hook were armed and the school had employed one armed security officer, a potential six (6) children would have died, instead of the 20 that fell victim to a “safe” gun free zone.
So when you have a run-in with a “just one child” gun grabber, this will really get under their skin.