When the New Yorker tried to corner Gary Johnson on his pro second amendment stances using Orlando, Johnson was having none of it.

“A situation like Orlando – I hope everybody paid attention to what happened in Orlando,” said Johnson. “I hope all the nightclub owners in the country were paying attention to the fact that all the doors were padlocked.”

“We’re talking about the ready availability of weapons that one would think should be limited to a field of war,” said New Yorker’s David Remnick.

“If you’re going to make those criminal, I think you’re going to have a whole new criminal class of people who aren’t going to turn in those weapons,” said Johnson. “We should be allowed to exercise our Second Amendment rights, which would be the ability to own semi-automatic rifles.”

Remnick then tried to hit Johnson with a common point of contention between 2nd Amendment supporters and anti-gun advocates, armed teachers. Johnson, however, maintained his stance that guns are good.

“I’m not going to tell teachers whether or not they should have a gun in the classroom. Come on, man,” said Johnson. “If a teacher would deem that to avail the classroom of potentially being secure, or if the teacher were to deem that something that within their own purview they might prevent an atrocity if it were to occur, I would support the teacher in wanting to be able to do that.”

In terms of saving lives, this is the right attitude to strike when it comes to guns in schools. Many anti-gun advocates continue to push the idea that schools need to be “gun-free zones,” however it’s gun-free zones where students – from children to young adults – are dying. 92% of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, and logically, eliminating them would save more lives.

This especially applies in the classroom, where teachers – armed and trained – would be able to protect the student body should they so choose to participate in carrying.