That's not my argument at all, and you've completely missed my point. I'm talking about the adult teachers, not the children who are students. If we were discussing CCW for a college level schools, then I'd say yes that college students who are old enough to possess a handgun ought to be allowed to carry it on campus. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about schools for juveniles, and as such these juveniles fall under a different set of rules regarding what they ought to be free to do. Children are not held to the same standards of responsibility as adults and are reasonably not capable of or expected to possess the same level of judgement as their adult teachers do.

The point of my statement that we can never know what anyone will do is not meant to argue for disallowing teachers to carry in school. If you'd have read closely you'd see that it was meant to address the reality of living in a free society were liberty trumps safety. You would say that because we can't know for sure that a teacher would not do something violent that that is cause to restrict their right to protect themselves and their students by carrying a concealed handgun, but MY argument was that the lack of surety that a person , who has never committed a violent act or given anyone cause to believe they might, is not reason to prohibit them from exercising the right defend themselves and their duty to protect the students in their classroom.

If you are genuinely of the opinion that people cannot be trusted with firearms, then do you also support a complete ban on all guns? If you stand by the argument that the law ought to be written to prevent "...the bad things that citizens MIGHT do," then you must support the complete abolition of all freedom within our society, because to be free is to have the opportunity to abuse that freedom and cause harm to others. You must, by your own logic, support a complete ban on all firearms because ANYONE who has a gun can if they choose to wreak havok and kill people anywhere they wish. I could take my guns out right now and kill a dozen people or more if I wanted to, and there's no way anyone could predict that I would do that based on my legal history and character. But I COULD. Should I not be allowed to own guns because I MIGHT go kill someone? Your reasoning says yes. Mine says that despite the fact that I MIGHT go murder someone, since I have not harmed others in the past and have not given cause to make anyone reasonably believe that I might in the future, then I should be free to own them as long as I don't harm others.

Because excessive speed creates a condition were you or others around you may not be able to avoid an accident due to a lack of time to react to an unforseen circumstance, or the vehicles inability to maneuver to avoid a potential accident. In this case, limiting speeds doesn't have a reasonable and genuine effect on traffic safety. By having and enforcing traffic laws it ensures that everyone on the road is on the same sheet of music so to speak, which promotes the overall ability of everyone on the road to avoid accidents. A speed limit is very different than the subject at hand. It is more akin to a law that says that one may not target shoot in town. What we are discussing is a matter of fundamental freedom and the right of people to exercise that freedom.

Now if you'd have used the analogy that we should ban automobiles because people can drive them too fast and kill someone, then the argument would be similar.

This is false on its face. That's like saying that allowing a police office to run red lights encourages everyone else to run red lights. I would even argue that the possible presence of an armed teacher would DETER most students from bringing a gun to school. The students that would have never brought a gun to school in the first place would be no more likely to bring a gun to school should their teachers be allowed to arm themselves. For the students bringing a gun to school would be no less illegal than it was before, and the students who abilde by the law and by school rules and don't want to get into trouble are not going to break the rules just because their teachers can legally carry a gun. The students that are in question are those who had no reservation about illegally bringing a gun to school in the first place. I would say that allowing the teachers to be armed may discourage these students from taking a gun to school because they would risk not only detention, expulsion and arrest, but they could also lose their lives. I think that most kids bring weapons to school because it makes them feel powerful and makes everyone else helpless. If they knew their teachers were armed they may realize that despite the fact that they have a gun, they are not guaranteed to be in control.

Then there are the students, like Harris and Klebold, who will bring a firearm to school regardless of the consequences with the express intent to kill those around them at any cost. No amount of deterrance will stop people like this, but at least the teachers and administrators, if armed, would have a reasonable opportunity to actually defend themselves and the lives of their students should the situation come to that. Right now the teachers are literally as helpless as their students in the face of a gun toting student on a vendetta because they can do NOTHING but watch as they and their kids are slaughtered while they wait for the police to arrive.

I disagree wholeheartedly. That's the reason for CONCEALED weapons. Out of sight, out of mind. Secondly, which is more of a distraction, a teacher who is legally armed, or a deranged student who might be when everyone else is defenseless?

Mike