I'm writing a persuasive essay on why higher education staff and faculty should be allowed to carry guns (with proper training, more than it takes to get a concealed pistol permit). I'm having trouble filling in the blanks, so I decided to start with my three arguments, and fill in the rhetoric from there. I can't decide, though, if the arguments fit together quite right. I almost get the feeling that the second one is conditional on the first one, and the third one comes out of left field. It was all I could think of, though. Here they are: 1. Gun laws don't stop school shootings. 2. When gun violence occurs in schools, there is rarely adequate security. 3. If everyone with a CPP had guns (instead of just the trained faculty) violence is much more likely, due to hormones, inexperience with firearms, etc. #1 is my pioneering argument. I'm basically using that to fuel the whole essay, because I think it's a powerful argument to prove that existing laws and policies are not enough. #2 sort of adds to that, saying that a further problem is the lack of security when shootings DO occur. I'm worried that it sounds a little too much like an "If this is true, then this is also true" formula, and I don't know if I can really do that and still present a solid argument. #3 is because another possible action would be to allow anyone with a CPP to carry a gun on campus. In the first two paragraphs I would target the dangers of there being NO guns, and in the third, the danger of there being too MANY guns. When I say it that way, it sounds like it could work, but I don't know if the reader would necessarily make that connection. Maybe I could use transition sentences/phrases that would make that connection? I don't know. Could these three arguments work together (and if so, what are your suggestions for tying them together)? Or should I start looking for some new arguments?