There is a growing claim that increasing the number of guns in society will reduce gun violence — that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Several bills are working their way through the New Hampshire Legislature. One is to stop public colleges from banning guns on campus (HB 1793). Another bill would require our public schools to provide “gun safety” classes to all students K-12, presumably to prevent in-school gun injuries or deaths. Published data refute these goals.
As noted, gun safety is not the same as using guns safely under stress, and confusing the two leads to dangerous conclusions. Gun safety generally refers to preventing unintentional harm: safe storage, keeping firearms unloaded when not in use, ensuring children cannot access them and following basic handling rules. These practices are important and necessary.
Fire discipline is actually what’s needed and is very different. It refers to how weapons are used under stress — deciding when to fire, correctly identifying a target, controlling fear and impulse and minimizing harm to others. Military personnel spend extensive time learning fire discipline because even trained soldiers can make fatal mistakes in chaotic, high-pressure environments. The primary objective is not just to defeat an enemy but to avoid shooting one’s own troops.
This is far harder than it sounds. In combat, there is an overwhelming fear that if you do not fire first, you will be fired upon. Split-second decisions determine life or death. Despite training, friendly fire or shooting one’s own troops remains a tragic reality. In some modern conflicts, historical analyses estimate that 10% to 17% of U.S. combat casualties were caused by friendly fire. Even highly trained professionals, operating within structured command systems, cannot eliminate errors under stress.
Law enforcement officers face similar challenges. They are extensively trained to distinguish real threats from perceived ones, as misjudgment can have irreversible consequences. Their training exists precisely to counteract the instinct to “shoot first and ask questions later.”
Now consider what happens when we extend firearms more broadly into the the use by students in school. Young students do not receive the level of stress training or tactical discipline required to make accurate life-or-death decisions in chaotic situations. Yet they are being encouraged to assume that role.
What do the numbers tell us? In 2022, there were more than 48,000 gun-related deaths in the United States, including homicides, suicides, accidental shootings and law enforcement-related incidents. Firearms are now among the leading causes of death for children and teenagers, and in recent years have ranked as the top cause of death when ages 1 to 19 are considered together. In 2021 alone, approximately 4,733 children and teens died from firearm injuries. On average, more than 4,400 young people are killed each year, and more than 17,000 are injured.
Meanwhile, firearm laws in schools across the country remain inconsistent. Most states prohibit guns on K-12 school property, yet nearly all allow exceptions for certain permit holders or personnel. There is no single federal rule governing firearms in schools — policies vary widely by state. On college campuses, the situation is even more fragmented. Eleven states explicitly permit concealed carry on campus in some form. Some allow institutions to decide locally, while others require campuses to allow concealed carry by law.
The broader question is straightforward: Does increasing the number of guns in schools make them safer, or does it increase risk?
If trained soldiers cannot completely prevent tragic errors despite rigorous discipline and structure, it is unrealistic to assume that widespread student gun ownership will reliably produce better outcomes in moments of panic or confusion. Expanding access to firearms does not automatically expand judgment, restraint or fire discipline.
Gun safety measures are important, but they do not substitute for the discipline required to use deadly force under stress. When we blur that distinction, we mislead the public.
If our goal is truly to reduce gun violence, we must confront what the data show. The U.S. already has more guns than people — and among the highest firearm death rates in the developed world. The evidence does not suggest that adding more guns will solve the problem.
In my view, fewer guns in circulation — combined with responsible regulation enforcement and efficient school security systems — would better serve school safety. The numbers speak for themselves.
Dr. Michael Sills is a Vietnam veteran and member of the Catholic War Veterans, a national veteran’s support organization. He lives in Bedford.