Another school shooting today

[Beefnot]

There is a very good reason. It is called FREEDOM and our Constitutional liberties. Are you opposed to freedom?

One of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was to take away gun rights. So have the Communists everywhere they come to power.

It all boils down to freedom versus totalitarianism.

And it still does not stop mass violence at schools. Communist China has recently had to put armed guards in schools after a rash of mass stabbings of school children by nutjobs. If they can't get guns, they will get use knives, Molotov cocktails, or whatever is handy.

What is really needed in not gun control, but nut control. Put them back in the mental institutions instead of trying to put them out on the streets.

Let us not conflate devotion to freedom with Constitutional rights. The Constitution was always intended by our forefathers to be a living, breathing document. It should change with the times. It was never intended to be immutable as, say, the Bible or the Koran have become. If societal norms and values change, then Amendments should be ratified.

I only make this point to suggest that the Constitution is not what gives moral legitimacy to any ideal. The Constitution should be a moral reflection of our society's ideals. A society could simultaneously celebrate freedom but place limits on its expression.

 

[Carolinian]

Let us not conflate devotion to freedom with Constitutional rights. The Constitution was always intended by our forefathers to be a living, breathing document. It should change with the times. It was never intended to be immutable as, say, the Bible or the Koran have become. If societal norms and values change, then Amendments should be ratified.

I only make this point to suggest that the Constitution is not what gives moral legitimacy to any ideal. The Constitution should be a moral reflection of our society's ideals. A society could simultaneously celebrate freedom but place limits on its expression.

Yes, the Constitution is always open to amendment. The left is welcome to try that if it wants, but I don't think they will get very far with an attack on the Bill of Rights, one of the most sacred parts of the Constitution. No, what they will try to do is pass an un-Constituional statute or perhaps even an Executive Order.

Your last sentence is pure Orwellian. It also reminds me of some of the ''rights'' enumerated in the old Soviet constitution.

 

[Carolinian]

Columbine victim's father's Congressional testimony

COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !!

Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
- Darrell Scott

 

[Ken555]

In Isreal teachers are required to carry a hand gun. Is that how we should protect school kids in the USA ?

There are some fundamental differences between the USA and Israel. For instance, it's an incomplete understanding of the reality in Israel if you think the rationale for arming civilians is due to mentally ill individuals going on a rampage. Also, all civilians in Israel are members of the army, received extensive training and served for a period of years. We don't have that in America, but if we did I think there would be a much greater understanding of weapons. I'm also unclear if all Israeli teachers carry guns every day.

If you haven't been to Israel, you might not be aware of how pervasive guns really are there. You'll see them on the street in plain view every day, since the military is everywhere. I haven't been there in a long time, but assuming its the same... If you're in the military on leave, you have to carry your weapon with you, so chances are on Saturday night out at an event or restaurant, you'll see more than a few weapons (and I'm not talking about small guns).

I'd prefer Israeli security over the TSA any day of the week when I fly (and I'm flying again today ) but when it comes to guns, Israel lives in a very different reality than we do in America. It's not complete to mention one aspect of their life, required by external events we don't have here, without a full understanding of the situation to put it in context.

 

[Carolinian]

That also reminds me of South Africa, where many civilians routinely carry guns. I remember going through the gate at Gold Reef City, a theme park built around gold mining south of Jo'burg, and seeing a sign requiring visitors to check their guns. All the South Africans ahead of me were handing over their pistols. I almost felt like apologizing for being a foreign tourist and not having one to hand over.

In reality, though, arming some of those who may come face to face with a terrorist or a deranged person is not a bad idea. I am a big supporter of arming airline pilots, after proper training, of course.

And just think in this situation of the principal and guidance councillor who went down the hall unarmed to defend the children and were murdered. What if they had been trained in firearms and had pistols locked away safely in their office ready for such a calamity? Instead of being murder victims themselves, they likely would have been the ones to stop the bloody rampage by shooting the perpetrator. Heck, they were not even given bows and arrows or pepper mace! Many schools already have full time police officers assigned. Maybe it is time to upgrade their training and weaponry to SWAT standards. As long as schools are soft targets, they will attract nutjobs.

There are some fundamental differences between the USA and Israel. For instance, it's an incomplete understanding of the reality in Israel if you think the rationale for arming civilians is due to mentally ill individuals going on a rampage. Also, all civilians in Israel are members of the army, received extensive training and served for a period of years. We don't have that in America, but if we did I think there would be a much greater understanding of weapons. I'm also unclear if all Israeli teachers carry guns every day.

If you haven't been to Israel, you might not be aware of how pervasive guns really are there. You'll see them on the street in plain view every day, since the military is everywhere. I haven't been there in a long time, but assuming its the same... If you're in the military on leave, you have to carry your weapon with you, so chances are on Saturday night out at an event or restaurant, you'll see more than a few weapons (and I'm not talking about small guns).

I'd prefer Israeli security over the TSA any day of the week when I fly (and I'm flying again today ) but when it comes to guns, Israel lives in a very different reality than we do in America. It's not complete to mention one aspect of their life, required by external events we don't have here, without a full understanding of the situation to put it in context.

 

[myoakley]

When I was a resident at The University of Chicago, we had people with gunshot wounds and stab wounds come into the ER on a daily basis. The dope dealers have no difficulty getting guns. Most of their arsenal is aquired illegally. We do not need more laws to enforce gun control when we cannot even enforce the ones we have already.

I will remind you again that far more people are systematically butched by governments than by the occasional lunatic. The main reason for the second amendment is to that we can protect ourselves from the government should the government become oppressive. One of Hitler's first acts was to disarm the population. Then he went after the mentally ill. Then he went after the Jews, the gypsies, and the homosexuals. (National Socialist Workers Party. A Good Nazi was a Good National Socialist. ) Similar events have taken place in Russia under the purges, in China with the cultural revolution, Cambodia with the killing fields, and to all infidels that live within Islamic states. This is a matter of historical record that is not meant to be political or religious. This is something that happens whenever there exists a totalitarian police state. The only proven way to prevent a totalitarian police state is to have an armed population.

The USA has abandoned its founding principles. Unfortunately, our public schools are no longer able to teach about good vs evil and right vs wrong. Parents no longer have the freedom to discipline their children as they see fit. G-d is not allowed to be mentioned in the public schools. People who argue for the sanctity and protection of human life are publically vilified. People who argue that individuals should be held personally accountable for their own actions are publically vilified. Then people cry about how violent our society has become. We have reaped the whirlwind. A further discussion of good and evil would venture into religion and the role it has played in the history of our nation.

Thank you, Pianodinosaur, for cutting through to the heart of the matter. All the discussion about guns is just more noise amid the chaos. The second amendment is not the problem. Our problem is CULTURAL. We have become a society obsessed with violence; witness the movies and video games where murder and mayhem are the big attractions. Why? Maybe we should consider the advice of our founding fathers: "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (John Adams)

And, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle." (George Washington)

Do we really believe that we are wiser than they? And to those who ask, "Where was God last Fri. at the Sandy Hook School?", He was banished 2 generations ago.

 

[Beefnot]

Your last sentence is pure Orwellian. It also reminds me of some of the ''rights'' enumerated in the old Soviet constitution.

In the original Constitution, black people were not considered complete persons and women could not vote. Is that what you long for a return to? Our society's moral ideals are what should always be perfecting our Constitution.

Oh, and your Columbine quote was already pasted earlier in the thread.

 

[Tia]

Our problem is CULTURAL.

Society often overlooks that it 'takes a village' agree. Think it also has to do with angry young men who the culture as a whole fails to direct in a positive way.

Think the arguments re forks,knives etc are out of place compared to the weapon used. Time needed to create the volume of damage are not accounted for with those. Who wins in a gun vs fork disagreement, I think it's the gun.

 

[Ridewithme38]

to those who ask, "Where was God last Fri. at the Sandy Hook School?", He was banished 2 generations ago.

According to your book, be it fiction or non-fiction i will leave out of this post...'god' is everywhere...To think that he could be kept out of a school because we want facts in school so we don't end up a nation like Iraq is very against what the writers of that book wrote

Keeping 'god' out of our government has been the single thing that has kept more of these incidents from happening, i used Iraq as an example before because they teach in their school according to 'god', i and many other NYers see the effects of teaching 'god' in school everyday when we walk by the void left in Manhattan

 

[SueDonJ]

Susan, if you have read my other posts that is exactly what I have been saying. The main purpose of a gun is to kill. Guns were invented to kill. It doesn't matter if its an AR-15 or Glock 9 either weapon is capable of mass murder. Many of these guns are all ready in the wrong hands.

I have been nothing but respectful. The fact that its difficult to protect yourself from some one with a gun unless you have a gun is the real issue.

So tell me the solution. I feel the real solution starts with education and parenting. That will never happen.

So what is your great idea. I have read all your posts and do not see any thing that would work. Im sorry my explanation is deemed unworthy of your consideration but my opinion is as valid as yours. So when some one who owns guns and has used guns to deter crime like me has an opinion on guns and crime verus some one that doesn't even own a gun, I would conclude the person that has the experience has the better grasp of whats going on.

My guess is that security will get beefed up at many public places like schools. What else can we do ?

In Isreal teachers are required to carry a hand gun. Is that how we should protect school kids in the USA ?

Im not trying to do anything buy present real facts. In the real world there is a need for protection. Until that changes owning guns is the best way to accomplish that protection.

And really nothing posted has disturbed me one bit and I do apoligize if my posts have been distrubing in any way.

Bill

Bill, I'm sorry if I read a tone in your last post that you didn't mean to imply. But it doesn't help the overall discussion for any of us to insinuate that the others are simply too ignorant to take part in it. That's the insinuation I got from it, anyway.

You have no idea what guns I've seen or fired, you have no idea if or how closely I've been affected by gun violence, you have no idea if I have ever had to defend myself or my children in a hostile situation, and you have no idea if my calls for more reasonable permitting of guns is based on a pacifist ideology or a religious ideology or something completely different.

Yet you had no problem insinuating that if I only knew as much as you know, or would change my thinking about all of this to match what you are thinking, then no matter what my beliefs are about any of this I would eventually end up agreeing with yours.

That's so presumptuous. All of us, each and every one of us, will approach the gun violence issue (same as any other issue) with our own perspective. No one can be said to be absolutely correct or absolutely incorrect. Our societal structure demands that we compromise in all things, and I'm tired of being told that there can be no compromise when it comes to gun violence. We all should be tired of it. I can't imagine that any of us can reasonably think that the price the families of those 20 children paid is worth it.

 

[Carolinian]

In the original Constitution, black people were not considered complete persons and women could not vote. Is that what you long for a return to? Our society's moral ideals are what should always be perfecting our Constitution.

Those were limitations on freedom that, thankfully, were later expanded to give a larger measure of freedom.

That is the opposite situation from the line of yours I questioned. You spoke of essentially setting up a facade of freedom which in fact was limited.

I am a Jeffersonian, and in favor of expanding personal liberty, not taking it away.

 

[Ridewithme38]

Those were limitations on freedom that, thankfully, were later expanded to give a larger measure of freedom.

That is the opposite situation from the line of yours I questioned. You spoke of essentially setting up a facade of freedom which in fact was limited.

I am a Jeffersonian, and in favor of expanding personal liberty, not taking it away.

Define personal liberty, i feel mine is expanded if i don't have to worry about some NRA Member shooting at me for cutting him off in traffic or looking at him cross eyed




Edited my post above to respect the post below mine

 

[SueDonJ]

Moderator Note:

I think Brian has given much leeway in this thread and I'm grateful that he allowed us to stray as far into topics that are normally off-limits on TUG. But there are certain few hot-button phrases recently introduced that are being used for no other reason but to insult, and I'm sure nobody is surprised to learn that for the first time since it began certain posts in the thread have been reported. Please, continue to try to approach this discussion without veering off into the polarizing topics of politics and religion, otherwise it's inevitable that the thread will have to be closed. Thanks.

 

[Carolinian]

Society often overlooks that it 'takes a village' agree. Think it also has to do with angry young men who the culture as a whole fails to direct in a positive way.

Think the arguments re forks,knives etc are out of place compared to the weapon used. Time needed to create the volume of damage are not accounted for with those. Who wins in a gun vs fork disagreement, I think it's the gun.

As to that ''it takes a village'' book, anyone who read it figured out that the author was the village idiot.

When Communist China has been recently going through a series of mass stabbings of students at its schools by deranged loonybirds, one can certainly NOT discount knives at all. When guns are not availible, as in totalitarian regimes, then crazies simply find another means to commit atrocities.

On the cultural end, I think [deleted] is downplaying a very important part of this, which was the violent video games that the perpetrator was addicted to. I think those should be banned, and treated like child porn for anyone caught with one. When you regularly shoot people in the fantasy world of these games, it desensitizes the player to doing it in real life.

 

[Ridewithme38]

On the cultural end, I think [deleted] is downplaying a very important part of this, which was the violent video games that the perpetrator was addicted to. I think those should be banned, and treated like child porn for anyone caught with one. When you regularly shoot people in the fantasy world of these games, it desensitizes the player to doing it in real life.

Haha! I've been playing violent video games all my life, at 32, my generation was raised in front of them, everyone 30 and younger was addicted to violent video games at one point, yet we don't see an entire generation of people going out mass murdering, its just a few random nuts....Banning them because of a few 'loonybirds' is akin to your generation banning 'catcher in the rye' because a few killers owned it

You wouldn't have stood for that then and to talk about being Jeffersonian in one post, then talking about the very actions he stood against like banning books/video games is silly

 

[Beefnot]

Those were limitations on freedom that, thankfully, were later expanded to give a larger measure of freedom.

That is the opposite situation from the line of yours I questioned. You spoke of essentially setting up a facade of freedom which in fact was limited.

I am a Jeffersonian, and in favor of expanding personal liberty, not taking it away.

Though I am not advocating it, the Constitutional technically could be amended to remove the Second Amendment, while retaining our other freedoms.

No freedom is absolute. We are not free to own rocket launchers. We are not free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. We are not free to carry certain items onto airplanes. We are not free to consume certain controlled substances. The right to consume alcohol as a legal adult over the age of 18 is not permitted. There are plenty of other examples. Reasonable people who worship the idea of freedom can also be supportive of limits to that freedom in the interest of the greater society.

 

[Carolinian]

Define personal liberty, i feel mine is expanded if i don't have to worry about some NRA Member shooting at me for cutting him off in traffic or looking at him cross eyed




Edited my post above to respect the post below mine

I could mention the clinical term for someone who worries about such things, but it would not be in keeping with the tone of this thread. You cannot cite one instance in the real world where an NRA member has done either of those things, so why worry about it?

The freedom to own guns allows you to defend your family against criminals, violent gangs and others who might pose a real threat, depending on where you live. When it is a crime to own a gun, then only the criminals will have guns.

Look at the riots that happened recently in the UK. The hooligans were running people down with cars, which involved at least one death, and were setting fire to occupied building, nearly causing a number of deaths, as well as using deadly force by throwing Molotov cocktails. The British are disarmed and could not defend themselves very well. Even though baseball is not a popular game in the UK, baseball bats sold out. Still, a baseball bat is of limited use against Molotov cocktails or to stop someone setting your occupied building on fire. After that experience, my British friends here have come over to the American way of thinking on the right to keep and bear arms. In contrast, it is doubtful any such riots would ever occur in Switzerland, because every able bodied male of military age is required to keep a military rifle and ammunition in his home, and any rioters would know their victims had the means to fight back. Not long ago, the Swiss had a referendum on whether to keep that requirement, and the voters backed keeping it.

 

[SueDonJ]

I could mention the clinical term for someone who worries about such things, but it would not be in keeping with the tone of this thread. You cannot cite one instance in the real world where an NRA member has done either of those things, so why worry about it?

The freedom to own guns allows you to defend your family against criminals, violent gangs and others who might pose a real threat, depending on where you live. When it is a crime to own a gun, then only the criminals will have guns.

Look at the riots that happened recently in the UK. The hooligans were running people down with cars, which involved at least one death, and were setting fire to occupied building, nearly causing a number of deaths, as well as using deadly force by throwing Molotov cocktails. The British are disarmed and could not defend themselves very well. Even though baseball is not a popular game in the UK, baseball bats sold out. Still, a baseball bat is of limited use against Molotov cocktails or to stop someone setting your occupied building on fire. After that experience, my British friends here have come over to the American way of thinking on the right to keep and bear arms. In contrast, it is doubtful any such riots would ever occur in Switzerland, because every able bodied male of military age is required to keep a military rifle and ammunition in his home, and any rioters would know their victims had the means to fight back. Not long ago, the Swiss had a referendum on whether to keep that requirement, and the voters backed keeping it.

We talked about Switzerland earlier in the thread if you'd like to go back and look for it. The whole picture is that Switzerland arms those certain citizens while also requiring them to serve a specified term as a militia member in defense of the homeland, and Switzerland gives those citizens weapons training as well as psychological evaluations and training. Switzerland's gun-owning populace is armed with a healthy respect for weapons that's obviously lacking in far too many US gun owners. It's disingenuous to bring up Switzerland as a perfect example of why more guns is the answer for us unless you're also suggesting that we put the same service and training demands on our gun-owning citizens. If that is what you're suggesting, I'd be in favor of those gun control measures.

 

[ace2000]

The freedom to own guns allows you to defend your family against criminals, violent gangs and others who might pose a real threat, depending on where you live. When it is a crime to own a gun, then only the criminals will have guns.

Sure, I'll go along with that to a degree. But, do we really need these (which was the weapon of choice by the shooter)? After seeing a picture of this thing, I am now a believer in gun control.

 

[Carolinian]

This column from the Irish Daily Mail of Dublin sets out the international statistics and the US does not look so bad in them:

http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/12/connecticut-killings-its-the-shooter-not-the-guns.html

It also addresses Switzerland.

We talked about Switzerland earlier in the thread if you'd like to go back and look for it. The whole picture is that Switzerland arms those certain citizens while also requiring them to serve a specified term as a militia member in defense of the homeland, and Switzerland gives those citizens weapons training as well as psychological evaluations and training. Switzerland's gun-owning populace is armed with a healthy respect for weapons that's obviously lacking in far too many US gun owners. It's disingenuous to bring up Switzerland as a perfect example of why more guns is the answer for us unless you're also suggesting that we put the same service and training demands on our gun-owning citizens. If that is what you're suggesting, I'd be in favor of those gun control measures.

 

[Carolinian]

Sure, I'll go along with that to a degree. But, do we really need these (which was the weapon of choice by the shooter)? After seeing a picture of this thing, I am now a believer in gun control.

Well, I suspect that it would deter a criminal a bit more than a single shot .22 would!

 

[SueDonJ]

This column from the Irish Daily Mail of Dublin sets out the international statistics and the US does not look so bad in them:

http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/12/connecticut-killings-its-the-shooter-not-the-guns.html

It also addresses Switzerland.

Ah, okay, we're not so bad, others are much worse, we don't have to worry about it unless we're The Worst. Honestly, you're satisfied with that?

I'm not. It doesn't matter to me how we compare relative to other civilized and non-civilized nations. The number of innocent victims we're willing to sacrifice in defense of the Second Amendment is unacceptable. It's inhumane. We must be better than this. And the reason isn't because we want to gain better standing in the statistical compilations.

{eta} I know it's coming - somebody is going to say that the sad fact of fighting for freedoms is that sacrifices must be made. Well, anybody who wants to sacrifice themselves should feel free to do so. Those 20 children did not ask to fight your fight.

 

[Carolinian]

Here is another good article, from the Wall Street Journal:

''Guns, Mental Illness, and Newtown''

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8185271857424036.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

This is a particularly telling paragraph from the article:

''The problem is that by the time the police arrive, lots of people are already dead. So when armed citizens are on the scene, many lives are saved. The media rarely mention the mass murders that were thwarted by armed citizens at the Shoney's Restaurant in Anniston, Ala. (1991), the high school in Pearl, Miss. (1997), the middle-school dance in Edinboro, Penn. (1998), and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (2007), among others.''

If that heroic principal in Newtown and been provided with firearms training and a gun to keep safely locked away in her office for such emergencies, she would not have had to confront the killer unarmed, and that could have saved many lives, including her own.

 

[ace2000]

Well, I suspect that it would deter a criminal a bit more than a single shot .22 would!

Unfortunately, it wasn't used on criminals this time.

 

[siesta]

Read an interesting statistic today:

EVERY single "mass shooting" since 1950 that has involved 3 or more fatalities, has been in a "gun free zone", with one exception, the shooting of Rep. Giffords in Tucson, AZ.

That is pretty astounding, IMO, these so called "gun free zones" are nothing more than mass murderer enabling zones. For the past 70 years this law obviously has done nothing to protect law abiding people. As if a mass murderer is going to change his mind because he saw a no guns allowed sign.

Gun free zones ensure law abiding citizens become helpless victims, while would-be mass shooters have defensless targets.

IMO, If a place is to be designated a gun free zone, then it is the obligation of the facility to have an armed professional protecting the defenseless citizens.... If they are unable to provide this then law abiding citizens who are already issued carry permits by their state police should be permitted to carry them for their protection and the protection of others. They are already trusted to carry them on our streets, our bowling alleys, and our restaraunts, etc.

I heard about defenseless school staff lunging at the shooter and sacrificing themselves to try to stop this madman, and about a teacher who hid her students in a closet and waited for the gunmen helplessly to tell him her kids were in the gym and then only to feel his wrath. Why should she not be permitted to have a firearm to protect herself and blast this shooter away when he walks through her classroom door? If you dont want our teachers armed what about at the very least letting the principle and administrators have ability to protect our schools. You are already trusting your kids lives and minds to her whether you realize it or not.