We need a debate on gun violence that respects facts and empirical data

Guns -- and especially guns in schools -- is a subject that arouses such strong feelings that reason and logic get completely lost.   We need to have a national debate that respects facts and empirical data.    Two points to back that up:

1.  In 1996 Republicans in Congress did the NRA's bidding and essentially shut down the CDC's study of gun violence by eliminating 96% of the funding that had previously been allocated f0r it through the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.    In January 2013 President Obama issued an executive order, asking the CDC to review the current evidence and asked congress to allocate $10 million for further study.   It's unclear as of this writing whether anything has come of that.   Even if it does get things going again, we have lost two decades of time that could have continued the studies CDC was doing before the NRA got its way.

2.  There is ample evidence that strongly supports NOT arming teachers to prevent school shootings.    The president-elect of the National Association of Secondary School Principals is opposed, saying:  “We would be asking school officials, trained as educators, to make a quick transition from teacher to SWAT member, arrive on the scene, assess the situation, overcome the severe nervousness that naturally accompanies a deadly force incident and take immediate action before blood is shed. . . .  It’s a bit more than you can cover in a typical teacher in-service.”     A mass shooting at the Empire State Building a few years ago resulted in several bystanders being wounded by shots fired by policemen -- policemen who had been through the rigorous shooting training at police academy, not the few hours that they are giving teachers in public schools.   Handling shootouts in crowds is a very difficult task, and it's not for amateurs.

And yet, the Missouri Legislature passed a bill permitting trained teachers and school administrators to carry concealed weapons in school.  And some school districts have begun programs to train teachers, who will then be given permits and expected to respond to shooting situations.

This is not a good idea.   Just as the facts show that, when there is a handgun in the home, an innocent member of the family or a visitor is much more likely to be shot by that gun than is an intruder, it's quite likely that innocent people rather than shooters will be hurt by poorly trained teachers.

Yet, despite ample evidence, the NRA and many many gun rights supporters simply ignore the evidence.   It's like talking to a stone wall.    If we could have a debate by designated debaters from both sides, widely televised, where the experts could challenge each other, and a skilled moderator who would keep the debate focused on points that could be backed up by facts -- then a we would at least have all the evidence laid out in public.

Alas, it won't happen.   Not in my life time, I'm sure.

Ralph