Diana, a Romania friend, recently queried me about guns. She asked, "We were discussing the idea of arming school teachers and were wondering what is your take on that issue?" Here is my answer to her.

Neither she nor any of her friends or relatives own or have use of firearms. Guns in Romania were taken away by authoritarian regimes decades ago.  Some rural people coated their guns in mutton tallow then boxed and buried them in backyards. They are occasionally discovered during construction digging and if well packaged still work well.

In Romania, as in most advanced nations, guns are legal to own and enjoy only under extremely strict regulations.  For example guns and ammo must be stored in separate wall or floor mounted safes inspected and approved by government officials.  They can check obedience to regulations at their discretion. That nation exemplifies NRA's greatest fear, governments prefer an unarmed citizenry, one lacking the capacity to resist government authorities.  

Policy involving this topic will always be an evolving experiment.  One reason is the increasing ease of manufacture. Consider the implications of three-dimensional printing.  Further, if well cared for they essentially last forever. Finally, to many people guns are more than tools, they represent powerful totems of independence and security.  

People inexperienced with firearms find the subject both disturbing and confusing.  I intend this FREE Insight to be a primer to help my Romanian friend and others understand the cultural and legal morass of private firearm ownership.  

First, guns and armed citizens involve complex data while carrying heavy emotional baggage.  Further, general ignorance about guns and those who shoot them is indeed high.  Also, few in the national media have experience with guns or the people who own and enjoy them.  (How do I know this: Because they so often say things implying near total ignorance.  Some are posturing their progressive persona, not actually so stupid as to confuse shotguns and rifles.)  

What about permitting school personnel, like airline pilots, to have the option of being armed.  Cultural and demographic factors are key to resolving this question. There is no universal, standardized answer.  Why is this true?

People cluster with those of  compatible culture.  Birds of a feather increasingly flock together.  Progressives tend to self-select, as do conservatives.  Nationwide this tendency is becoming stronger.

In communities where firearms are alien and feared, it would be difficult for schools to propose an armed staff.  However, as government budgets become more stressed, the cost of trained, competent, and trustworthy protection will be harder to afford.  Then what?

If parents believe children need protection but the school cannot afford it, the question becomes: What are substitutes for paid security guards?  The obvious answer is the people normally employed by schools, the teachers and staff. Hence, if school shootings continue, my friends question about arming teachers becomes relevant.  (This is strictly a hunch but they are likely to drop due to increased vigilance, not armed school staff.)

It will be easier to answer among the "despicables", "deplorables", and "bitter clingers".   The last are people who, in Obama's description, "cling to their Bibles and their guns".  In this context it may make sense to allow individual school districts to have optional trained and armed teachers and staff. (One church in Bozeman does exactly this with a trained team of Sunday volunteers.)   The school Ramona and I support has sponsored fundraisers in which the prizes include hunting rifles. Some other charities include ARs as options.

This suggests why local, decentralized organization is so advantageous.  No central authority imposes the "correct" answer.  What is acceptable in one cultural context, armed teachers and staff, is unambiguously rejected in another.

I surely hope arming teachers will not become a substantively important issue: I assume school shootings, like major earthquakes, will be extremely rare.  Such horrid events are contagious and media coverage is irresponsibly high.  Further, some progressive, liberal activists and politicians exploit such events, mobilizing opposition to private ownership of weapons. 

However, many Americans have learned that when seconds count, police authorities are only minutes, sometimes hours away.  Also, many quite normal people are concerned that their city and society more generally is teetering on the edge of disruption and chaos.  Should these occur, a gun converts from a totem to a survival tool, one with which they should be comfortable and competent.

Diana, I hope you found this overview helpful.  By the way, I many times read that "The only purpose of an AR 15 is to kill people."  Those who spout such silliness simply can't understand or empathize with those who find shooting ARs at targets harmless fun with family and friends, especially with 20 round magazines.  It's less expensive than golf and to some people shooting competence brings a comforting sense of security.