Truthfully? because I (and most of America) don't want our schools to be armed camps.
metal detectors, armed guards, etc are the WRONG way to go on this stuff, just as more pretend security at airports is ridiculous. If we are a violent society, and don't want to look at and fix the root causes, then we should suck it up and accept the consequences. Armed camps around a school classroom is NOT a healthy environment. I certainly would not want to go to school in such a situation, and I don't want to meet the kids who do. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Bruce Sorge <[email protected]> wrote: > > You make a good point about the idea that not everyone should have a gun, > but I still maintain that if certain criteria were met, there's no reason > why some teachers or school officials should not be armed. In the case of > this recent event, you are right, a gun would have been a bit much for an > appropriate response, but recall the original thread. Someone implied that > the violence could have been worse had the student had a gun, and so I > implied that if the student had a gun, and so did the teachers/officials, > either the crazy would not have acted at all, or the kids could have had > some degree of protection. No matter how you look at it though, there WILL > be injuries/casualties no matter what. We just need a way to mitigate the > number of casualties/injuries. > > Anyway, even if people don't want to arm teachers/officials, why not hire > armed security as you mentioned? Why not put metal detectors in all > schools? Why are we more concerned with protecting a government building, > like a court house than we are of protecting our children? How come fat ass > pieces of shit like Michael Moore can have armed security, but our kids > can't? I guess that's really my point. (And yes, I know that Moore hired > his security, not tax payers, but it's just to make a point) > > And your idea of hiring veterans to do the security work is good, but there > are soldiers that I have personally seen ( I see them almost every day on > my range) who have no business holding a weapon. Not all soldiers are good > shooters. Trust me. > Obviously for something like this to work, there'd have to be some testing > involved, like go to a shooting range that has different scenarios, shoot > houses and such so that folks could be evaluated. And psychological testing > is a must. Just because someone can shoot doesn't mean they are sane. > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I am not anti-gun. > > > > But I am also not "a gun is the solution to every problem". > > > > I have seen people at the shooting range. Would NOT want them armed in a > > school with the desire to use it. > > > > And those are the people who PRACTICE. > > > > In this case, a crazy did not come into the school. He was already there. > > (student). And crazy, by default, means "not reasoning normally". > > > > I don't think a gun would have done much IN THIS CASE. Heck, a CHAIR > could > > have ended it faster. But there was too much panic, and no one is trained > > for handling sudden unexpected violence. Too bad there weren't more > > veterans as teachers in the immediate area. They (in my opinion) are > > probably more likely to react quickly and correctly when the normal rules > > are suddenly lost. Plus, it is good employment for veterans. > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:369876 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
