yessir -- small, and significant. -- j
.

Yes.

Gun Free Zone = Easy Prey Zone (for Crime)

I took the question to be a way of scaring people into banning guns or at least into thinking of them as a privilege for appropriate situations. I could see now taking the question on face value.

I was responding to the word "should" which implies more than them having the right to bear arms but a specific encouragement of them to be armed (and trained).

"The number of times an armed surgeon would stop a shoot-out in the operating room are relatively small. "
The same is true for field applications engineers and teachers.

The right to bear arms doesn't depend on the risk of needing them in a particular situation.

Not exactly, teachers are potentially the last line of defense for their classes. The number of times an armed surgeon would stop a shoot-out in the operating room are relatively small.

It makes sense for teachers to have the ability to arm themselves and training in the use of the weapon.

yes

I think it's like asking "should surgeons be armed?" "should field applications engineers be armed?" They're all specific cases of the question "should citizens be armed?"

Yes, for three reasons: philosophical, scientific, and historical/political.

The first and most fundamental reason stems from our natural right to life. What sense does this right make if we are not allowed the right to self-defense? None. And of what value is the right to self-defense if we are not permitted to equip ourselves with efficient tools for self-defense? None.

Scientifically, we know that handguns are among the most efficient tools of lethal force. I've seen statistics that show that there are far more defensive uses of firearms than offensive, and places with more guns tend to have less violent crime, and this makes sense to me. I've also seen statistics showing exactly the opposite, and I tend to doubt those. But nevermind the statisticians, the fact is most people in the business of lethal force (e.g., policemen, soldiers, body guards, etc.) arm themselves with guns just because they know that these are, scientifically, the most efficient tools to do violence on another. Some use them to take away our rights, we ought to be allowed to use them to defend our rights.

And of course historically, our government has recognized this right in the second amendment. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Progressives have infringed, but that is just more evidence of their inverted morality; they affirm the code of death.

I live in San Antonio, Texas. We just passed a bill that allowed concealed handgun license (CHL) holders to carry concealed firearms. There are lots of problems with this. First, it doesn't become law until August of 2016 (2017 for community colleges). Second, it still requires a license. I don't like to ask permission and pay $$ for what should be a natural right they should be protecting. Finally, the law allows private universities to opt out. I affirm private property rights, and private businesses should be able to make rules like this if they want to. That doesn't mean I have to like it. I work at Trinity University, so this bill won't really help me here in Texas.