This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should parents, teachers and other personnel be able to carry a concealed weapon in a school?
Recently, legislation was passed in Michigan that gives people the ability to carry a concealed weapon in a school, hospital, church and other open areas (stadiums, shopping malls,etc.). Proponents say the legislation requires those carrying a license to have increased training and that this law would increase public safety. Opponents, say adding the opportunity for an increase in weapons in places that should be the most safe, such as schools, hospitals and churches is a bad idea will lead to something tragic.
Todd Westervelt
I am not trying to persuade by authority, however, I write about myself because I think my experience might entitle me to have something to say about the issue.
1. There is something to be said, from a moral - or at least ethical - perspective, when giving in to the fatalistic idea that guns are needed to protect us from one another even places that are supposed to be the among the most safe in our society.
2. From a practical perspective, having teachers - who have gone to school to teach and not to act as police or paramilitary - carry concealed weapons affects our children's world view in a negative way. We are teaching our children that the only way to feel safe is to be packing - not what I want to teach MY children.
3. From a practical perspective, do you think that a teacher carrying a handgun, under the stress of any situation similar to what recently happened, is going to be very effective against a fully armed and possibly armored gunman or gunmen?
Malls and other open public places,, possibly. Schools, churches and other places of traditional haven from the world, absolutely not. Let us keep some of these places to the peace lovers of the world, and to the dreamers of dreams, and to the hope in the mystery of faith that passes all understanding..
peter lindsay 30+
Here’s a picture of a school in Israel; it’s not a “gun-free” zone"
No it's a war zone
pat gilbert 50+
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ann-coulter/2012/12/19/coulter-column-we-know-how-stop-school-shootings
pat gilbert 50+
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/
pat gilbert 50+
http://noisyroom.net/blog/2012/12/16/stampeding-gun-control-through-crisis/
Robert Winner 50+
The opinion of a psych is that we should not make the big news deal we do ... we show people in panic ... seriens whailing ... people screaming and running .. He believes that this makes the shooter feel powerful .. then the media announces his name and that is instant fame to the world (in his eyes) ... perhaps the way these things are approached need to be examined ... and yes the media involvement examined also.
I have been in some meetings with parents and was glad that they were not armed ... but it answered a lot of questions about their childs behavior.
Have a good one. Bob.
John Smith 30+
Robert Winner 50+
Colleen Steen 500+
If my memory serves me, you are a veteran of war, have served as a law enforcement officer, and corrections officer. Your knowledge, experience and well articulated comment are appreciated.
Mercuro Chrome
Am I faulting the police? Absolutely not. But we delude ourselves if we think that waiting for help is the best thing. If so, then we are reducing people's options to a simple lottery and we should say 'do what is safe, reasonable, wait for help and pray your number is not up'
In these types of tragedies a lone ranger could have potentially bought some time. Or not, who knows, that is the point of prevention.
Colleen Steen 500+
I think anyone deludes him/herself by believeing that a" lone ranger" could potentially buy time. I'm sure you know that some guns that are available, have a high RPM (rounds per minute)? Some assault rifles fire at a rate of 460-900 RPM. Submachine guns and machine pistols fire at a rate of 1,000-12,000 RPM. A lot of damage could potentially be done BEFORE a "lone ranger" even got notification. I believe the shooter in CT had shot himself before the police arrived? He/she could end his/her own life at any time after killing a lot of other people, and before the "lone ranger" arrived. I agree with your suggestion to do what is safe and reasonable. We will not solve a gun issue by bringing more guns into the scene. Those who want to kill, will simply get more advanced faster killing guns, which are availabe.
Mercuro Chrome
On your rounds per minute comment, here is some enlightenment for you. I own a handgun (surprise!) and it has got a low capacity magazine 6+1 shots. The last time I went target shooting I was there for 40 minutes (months ago) I had two magazines preloaded and bought 100 rounds at the range. I was able to fire all those rounds within 30 minutes while stopping to reload the magazines. 100 shots in 30 mins with a small gun, small capacity magazine. That is essentially 3 RPM taking my time. Using the same weapon the CT monster could have squeezed out 60 shots before the police could have arrived, enough for two per victim.
You say let's not solve a gun issue by bringing more guns... I propose it is not a gun issue alone. This is becoming a cultural staple of the USA and must be looked at from multiple angles.
peter lindsay 30+
Mercuro Chrome
Thank you for taking care of our children.
Colleen Steen 500+
Robert Winner 50+
When a police team enters a building it is a coordinated effort to neutralize the situation and to "save" as many as possiable. If you were armed and in the hallway you would be considered a target. Let the pros handle it.
Remember everything has an expiration date .. even mercuchrome was replaced by providone Iodine.
All the best. Bob.
Mercuro Chrome
The reality is that the police is indeed prepared to deal with these guys but they are seldom there when needed and are too slow to respond. So what do you suggest? Hide, close door and wait. Basically bury your head in the sand and pray those gunshots are walking away... might as well invoke the holy spirit or a Jedy mind trick (some Hollywood for ya).
For this debate to be truly about safety, all the facts must be on the table: long guns, purchase loopholes, police response, mental illness and gun-free areas reassessment.
Wake up and smell the coffee Bob. If you are old enough to know mercurochrome you are old enough to know better, evil has to be confronted, not appeased.
Colleen Steen 500+
To the best of my understanding, the CT shooter did NOT have any illegally acquired weapons. His mother, who worked at the school, bought the guns legally, she said to protect herself and her home.
The shooter chose to go to that school because his mother was there, and I'm sure you know that he shot her too.
I totally agree with you that we need to reassess our views, and to do that, it helps to have accurate information.
You didn't actually "enlighten" me regarding RPM. I've had two law enforcement officers in my family, lots of soldiers, lots of hunters, and I used to shoot skeet. I am a little bit familier with guns.
I am NOT seeing the gun as the only problem, and of course it is not simply a gun issue, which is why I keep saying we need to address the underlying issues. Do you read the comment thread before you argue? If not,it might help you participate with accurate information in the future.
I will quote your wise words..."all facts must be on the table", and "wake up and smell the collee"
Bob is a trained combat soldier, law enforcement, and corrections officer. Not only is he older, he is wiser as well:>)
Mercuro Chrome
The shooter did not have automatic weapons, semi-autos is what he had, one shot per trigger squeeze. He did not do this 'so fast', he had 20 minutes. My enlightening example was to point out to you that even with a small 'slow' gun he would have had time time to put two rounds per victim. Go ahead, ask your friends if 20 minutes make a difference with a small gun, that Colleen in an unopposed shooting situation is an eternity.
Also the guns were registered to the mom, not the shooter. If I get a gun that is not registered to me I am committing a crime. If the mom gave the guns to him then she committed a crime. Either way, he did not acquire those guns legally.
You said "we will not solve a gun issue by bringing more guns into the scene" your words. Spell out the underlying issues and put them into the debate.
As a rule I don't trust anyone that likes cats, but I am sure Bob is a wise guy. However, the argument of training goes out the window by just looking at the issue from the vantage point of the shooters. None of these guys are ex-cops, ex-military or weapons-trained and are able to do a lot of damage. Letting a threat like that go unchecked is a major mistake that will continue to claim lives.
Colleen Steen 500+
What the heck is your point??? Two rounds per child....12 rounds per child.....it ALL KILLS!!!
I ask you again....would you like your two little children in the cross-fire of teachers, staff, rescue personel and a killer?
The topic of this debate is:
"Should parents, teachers and other personnel be able to carry a concealed weapon in a school?"
That is the topic, and that is what I am addressing on this comment thread, at this time.
Mercuro Chrome
No need to get worked up. Clouds your judgement.
Yes, teachers should be allowed (not forced) to carry a concealed weapon. Your question is a narrow minded one. No parent wants its child close to any shooting, but given the option of defending children versus passively praying for luck, I rather go with the former.
Is it potentially messy? Sure. A tragedy is a tragedy. But letting those sick psychos dictate the terms is a moral disgrace.
Colleen Steen 500+
I am not "worked up", nor am I making any judgement, so there is nothing to get clouded. I was trying to have a reasonable discussion, which takes two people.
I do not agree that teachers should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. I believe that practice would only cause more tragedies.
My question regarding the safety of children IS NOT narrow minded. It is well thought out, and backed by relevant information.
I have not noticed ANYONE on this comment thread suggesting "praying for luck", and your suggestion is not at all about "defending children", it is about teachers, staff, emergency responders and "lone rangers" (as you say) carrying guns under the guise of "protecting chidlren".
NO ONE on this discussion thread has mentioned letting "those sick psychos dictate the terms", and several participants have offered suggestions which seem more reasonable, responsible, and more safe, which is the important part.
Randy Speck
Can we really prevent the unthinkable? Crisis management plans are by definition, plans to manage something that has happened. When you hear stories coming out of Sandy Hook Elementary, you hear of teachers doing what they are trained to do...protect those children. Have the doors locked, get them into a corner or closet as far away from the door as possible, keep the children quiet and calm and wait for the police to get there. I hear and understand the side of the debate that says "what if teachers or someone in the building has a gun, they could prevent this." In my mind, as a school Superintendent, it is hard for me to see that working in any possible way. I would respectfully respond by saying that the teacher's role in that crisis is to protect those innocent children and keep them as safe as possible. If they are worried about getting their gun out of the desk drawer, the focus that is lost for that one second, may contribute to even greater harm.
It's not a perfect solution...is there a perfect solution to preventing "crazy" and "evil." If so, please let me in on it as I comb through our emergency plans to find any gap that may exist.
Mercuro Chrome
Colleen Steen 500+
Who's going to be administering to those who are wounded, while the rescue workers are firing guns? If it is kept a secret, how are all the teachers and staff that you would like to see packing a gun, going to know who is who? Would you honestly like to see your two little children in that cross-fire? Think about it.
Colleen Steen 500+
I have expressed my feelings regarding your topic, and since security is the primary reason for wanting, or not wanting guns in schools, I would like to offer an alternative, which is already used in many schools.
Several years ago, we had a very similar situation in a near-by community. The son of a teacher was angry with his mother, entered the school building, and shot her, as well as several other people including a friend of mine who was a WONDERFUL teacher and ALWAYS engaged with the children in her class. She was simply standing in the front of her class, doing her thing when the young man went on a rampage.
Right after that incident, several schools in the area, including the one in my community, installed security systems. Nobody can get into the school without a badge. If a person does not have a badge to enter, they must identify themselves, and the door will be opened by someone in the main office.....or not. To me, this seems like a much better idea, then everyone carrying a gun. As I wrote in another comment...violence does not stop violence....bringing more guns onto the scene does not solve the underlying issues, and simply "normalizes" the weapon, the situation, and the behavior.
It seems like we have evolved enough as thoughtful, feeling, intelligent human beings, to realize that what we've done in the past does not work (violence to stop violence, more guns to stop the killing of people with guns). We have technology (security systems) which we can use for protection, rather than bringing more guns into schools.
Steve C
I think it's a better course than doing nothing, 'policing'/scanning schools, or disarming a generally-protective populace.
Yes it brings weapons on-site, not "great," but the attacker's weapon came from the outside and there were 20-some already dead before the "professional guns" even got there; unacceptable!
Make it voluntary, so if teachers aren't well-trained, they don't have to have that on their back.
(I'm doubting the "chaos" theory, it would only take a few students running by before one was able to ID the gunner. You see two gunmen, one is shooting randomly & the other is aiming at the first; or a teacher sees another teacher with a gun while hearing another gun firing...)
If a potential attacker knows teachers are armed, that may prevent an attack outright! Or at least it puts (a major) wall in the way; a locked door is a minor wall, but better than nothing.
For those "within the system who are already a little unstable..." I would hope there are enough people around to see early danger-signs.
Where is the mother? I'd say she's the victim of a bullied, and medicated, young man. (And where is the father?)
@Peter & John:
In-home murders & rapes are usually 1-on-1. Teachers usually travel in packs. And maybe these armed-teachers are not obvious.
"shoot the teachers first." Easy to type. More difficult to pull-off - especially if they're armed as well. Any and all alterations would each be like a wall, as mentioned above; each alteration being a retrograde waste of time and energy = more lives saved.
It may also "take awhile" for cops to get on scene, geared-up, up-to-speed, coordinated, etc.
The cops have guns. The soldiers have guns. It seems that people who are expected to be effective at protecting others against guns, have guns.
Thank you Randy for the question. May you keep your schools safe!!
Colleen Steen 500+
I'm not advocating doing nothing. I suggest dealing with the underlying issues, rather than bringing more guns on site. Violence does not stop violence. I do not believe that more guns on site will stop the killing with guns. It simply "normalizes" the weapon, the situation, and the behavior.
Steve C
Me too! (So what do you think are the underlying issues: a fiat doller, 8 new foreign wars, illicit drugs, licit drugs, Satan? [but answering that would be off-topic. Never-mind.])
I read a book long ago that talked about martial arts. It said that one could see a fight coming when two angry people were staring at each other, and that a fight was pretty much just the end of the confrontation. Then again, we're not talking about merely violence; we're talking about murders. If it takes violence to stop murders-in-progress, is that wrong?
A lone gunman went in taking lives; why can't a Lone Ranger protect those lives?
These teachers can be our Minute-Men! (And beat the cops by twenty-minutes!)
Colleen Steen 500+
One of the first things that could be done to make our schools a little more safe, is security systems. As I mentioned in another comment on this thread, we had a similar situation in a nearby town years ago. Although not as big an event because of the numbers of people killed and injured, it was a young man, who was angry at his girlfriend's mom, who worked at the school, so he shot several people at the school, including the person he was angry at. The basic idea of the situation was similar, and innocent people who happened to be in his path were shot.
Right after that, a security system was installed in our school, and students, teachers and staff need a badge to enter. All other visitors are required to identify themselves before the doors will be unlocked for them from the office. It seems like a simple and effective safety measure, that can be utilized fairly quickly in schools.
Then there is the issue of bullying, which we need to continue to address.
I believe many of the violent video games "normalize" shooting people, and that could be addressed....many issues need to be addressed, and those are additional topics for us to look at.
I do not believe that violence ever stopes violence. Murder does not stop murder. If we do what we've always done, we get what we've always gotten. Is shooting people, stopping the shooting of people? Or is that behavior increasing? The only thing that is happening, is that the guns are becoming much more effective for killing. Is that what we want to continue to do?
My perception is that teachers don't want to be "minute-men"....they want to be teachers.
Lori de Wet
Ed Schulte 50+
for example....
"Advocates of greater regulation point to the fact that the US has 3.2 firearms homicides per 100,000 population compared with 1.6 for Canada, 1.0 for Australia and 0.1 for England and Wales, according to a 2012 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime."
peter lindsay 30+
edward long 100+
It looks like you have lots of guns there but people don't use them to kill other people if what you say about the rarity of gun related crime is correct. We have lots of guns here in the US and, like you Australians, most of us do not use them to commit crimes. Guns are not the problem. Insane people running free is the problem. Do you have homocidal people running free in Australia?
peter lindsay 30+
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html
This graph illustrates the change in weapons used in homocides since gun laws were introduced. There has also been a general drop in the numbers of homocides per population in the same period
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/victims-incidents.html
As you can see the number of incidents has dropped even though the population has increased over the same period
edward long 100+
peter lindsay 30+
edward long 100+
peter lindsay 30+
edward long 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
pat gilbert 50+
greg dahlen 20+
george lockwood 20+
Randy Speck
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/20345515/mi-legislature-passes-bill-allowing-concealed-weapons-in-churches-and-schools
Thank you all for contributing
Barry Palmer 50+
Keeping our children safe will require people on site who are trained to spot potential assailants and stop them. Anything short of this will not work.
Expecting educational professionals to take on this additional duty is expecting too much.
In addition, we should also employ scanner technology. The scanners should be at least 30 meters from the school doors and there should be enough of them, in separate locations, so that there is never a crowd of children waiting around them, presenting an inviting target.
Cheap security does not exist.
Steve C
But, "Expecting educational professionals to take on this additional duty is expecting too much." This surprised me! I think that 97 out-of 100 gun-wielding teachers would have been out in the hallway SWAT-style - ready to take this shooter down, (two of the others would have remained in a barricaded classroom with the students behind them.)
And I highly doubt that scanner tech is helping at all. I think it eats at their self-esteem & puts the emphasis on technology itself instead of human relationships and cultural strength.
(And the threat is not just the nutcases http://www.cchrint.org/2011/12/19/canadian-judge-rules-antidepressants-like-prozac-can-cause-children-to-commit-murder/ )
Barry Palmer 50+
However, having guns on the school premises, in the hands of people who are not in uniform, complicates the situation. The good guys, including police responding to the threat, must differentiate the good guys from the bad guys, and a wrong decision could be fatal. This is an entirely different situation that would require careful management.
IMO, another factor that should be considered is the size of our schools. It seems that they keep growing bigger, supposedly a means of lowering the cost per pupil. I think this is a mistake for many reasons, and security is one of them.
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
Schools should be schools; preparation for school should not be same as in a war zone.
edward long 100+
edward long 100+
John Smith 30+
In the real world the teacher (or a parent or former student) is much more likely to go postal on the school himself than shooting an outside attacker and even if the school gets attacked he is more likely to flee or freeze up than to fight back and if he does fight back he's likely to engage in friendly fire (this gets progressively worse as more people in the school start shooting as well and in the fray nobody knows who's who, even an experienced soldier would have difficulties because there's no squad structure, chain of command, uniforms or radio communication and the positions of friendlies are mostly unknown, friendlies are poorly trained and there are a lot of civilians in the way). You really need some serious training to effectively fight an armed attacker and not shoot a bunch of innocent people in the process, setting the bar high enough for this means the vast majority of parents and teacher will fail the training, which negates the premise and anger those who fail and the NRA, who will in turn exert political influence to lower the bar because we all know it's not really about security but about suburban men who need to compensate for something, they just want to carry a gun.
edward long 100+
pat gilbert 50+
peter lindsay 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
Bringing more guns into the scene does not solve the underlying issue of why some people want to shoot other people. In fact, it only complicates the issue, as you insightfully state. With the possibility of teachers, parents, and "others" armed, a situation could get even more dangerous...as you say...it gets progressively worse as more people start shooting...nobody knows who's who...inexperienced...poorly trained...frightened...confused...people in the way....chaos!!! As you say, even an experienced soldier or trained law enforcement officer would have difficulties with the situation.
Edward,
I find it interesting that as a former trained, experienced soldier, you advocate this idea. You perceive an article in American Rifleman magazine as confirmation that this is a good idea?
Think about your experience my friend, and ask yourself if you honestly want a bunch of citizens (good intentioned or not) armed with weapons in our schools?
In the event that you think I am just a silly woman with a silly idea, I'll tell you that I have LOTS of friends and family who are hunters and I used to shoot skeet. I do not have anything against people using guns for sport. A gun is a tool that needs to be respected and one who carries a gun needs to be well trained.
edward long 100+
The magazine feature is not a one-time article. It is featured every month and is EXACTLY what you describe, a real-world, factual expression of the soundness of the idea of citizens being armed and knowing how to use those arms to stop fearsome aggressors.
The only people I want armed in our schools are the professional educators who are willing to be trained and armed to protect children from this ever increasing problem. I DO NOT advocate arming people who are untrained and/or do not respect, or accept, the grave responsibility that goes with firearm ownership. Be well young lady!
John Smith 30+
Well, I truly believe a special forces soldier would say things along the same line (I say special forces soldier because most ordinary soldiers either never get into a firefight or only so few times that they don't really learn anything from it).
"I do not have anything against people using guns for sport."
I think it's cruel and pathetic (the animal doesn't stand a chance so where exactly is the "sport" in it?), but to each their own I guess, but those kids in Connecticut weren't killed with a hunting rifle. An assault rifle ban combined with European style training requirements and ban on concealed carrying would make the mass killings a lot less deadly and common and that's the approach I advocate, which I want Edward to know that I'm not advocating a ban on all guns.
"The only people I want armed in our schools are the professional educators who are willing to be trained and armed to protect children from this ever increasing problem."
That would have to be some pretty hefty training that most teachers won't be able to pass and the few that do won't make much of a difference because even the most hardened delta or navy seal would have difficulties handling a school shooting.
Steve C
However let's consider two possible thoughts from an attacker: 1) "1-2-3 dead, La-dee-da... 4-5-6 dead, (all unarmed, of course, thank-you-very-much). 7-8-9-10-11 dead, no problem whatsoever, skip over here ... dead, dead, and dead."
vs:
2) "Oh *&%# they're shooting back AT ME!? Maybe I'll slow-down on this assault a little! Maybe I won't get as many kills as I was hoping for. ...Maybe this was a bad idea."
Colleen Steen 500+
peter lindsay 30+
John Smith 30+
Exactly, worse still, the shooter is likely no stranger to the staff, so it might take a while before they figure out who he is. It's the same with murders and rapes: you may think that having guns in your home and turning your home into a fortress would increase protection but it won't, people are most likely to be killed or raped by family members or (ex)-lovers, and you won't see it coming. Having guns in the house just saves the perp the trouble of getting one him/herself and living in a bunker makes it harder for the neighbors to notice something's going on and for the police to help you.
Colleen Steen 500+
Response to YOUR comment which begins...""You offer some good points John,"
I think we're on the same page with the issue of guns in school?
I took us a little off track with mentioning guns for sport...
You write..."
"I think it's cruel and pathetic (the animal doesn't stand a chance so where exactly is the "sport" in it?)"
I eat meat....an animal.
I'd rather see a good hunter put the animal down fast, rather than some of the things that go on in slaughter houses. The hunters I know use the meat to feed their families, use the hides, etc. The hunters I know track the animals for miles in the mountain forests... in the animal's territory....that is the "sport" for them. It IS NOT sporting to shoot an animal grazing by the side of the road, or shooting cows, horses or their buddies because the stupid person who thinks s/he is a hunter doesnt's even know what s/he is shooting at!
Very few intentional killings of people are done with sport (hunting, trap, skeet) rifles, as you mention. I agree that we should ban the import, manufacture and sale of assault rifles, saturday night specials, and all guns that are used primarily to kill people.
Colleen Steen 500+
I find it interesting that you find my interest in your comment interesting:>)
Thanks Edward...I'm glad you do not think I am "silly". You often get huffy and condescending when I do not agree with you.....I was getting ready for ya!!! LOL!
I am not associating you with anyone else Edward.....simply reading your comments, which stand alone.
Most professional educators I know are over worked as it is, and usually cannot find time to do the regular necessary things that go along with being a professional educator. I cannot imagine many of them willing to take the time and energy needed for weapons training and maintenance. I don't agree with you that guns should be brought into schools.
I thought we already established that I am not a "young lady". Based on information I've seen, I'm your age, and it seems silly to continue calling me something that I am not.
Colleen Steen 500+
I was going to let this go by, and decided not to.
You write..."The magazine feature is not a one-time article. It is featured every month and is EXACTLY what you describe, a real-world, factual expression of the soundness of the idea of citizens being armed and knowing how to use those arms to stop fearsome aggressors."
I HAVE NOT DESCRIBED ANYTHING WHATSOEVER LIKE THAT.
You are trying to twist comments again to "fit" YOUR argument, and it is not very interesting or appealing.
edward long 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
Maaher Sayeed 10+
The need to buy, carry and use a gun at free will within social environment at an individuals instincts only indicates the failure of social structure and instigates a breakdown of formal systems of law and civil obdience. Next thing pending is perhaps police waiting outside a school for the gun battle to end between teachers and students over a disagreement so that they can go in and collect the remaining survivors.
Ed Schulte 50+
I would like to know how many Parents, Teachers, and "other" Personnel ......you would have to have in an Elementary School to have prevented this?
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school/?hpt=hp_t1
secondly.....why would you choose that option rather then choose one that would begin to address the enormous Karmic Energy Imbalance within the Society of United State of America?
For some strange reason you seem to think that carrying weapons in a "concealed" fashion is somehow a positive deterrent! I believe that is one more step in the Growing National Mental Insecurities ...and not to be smiled about.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
edward long 100+
Randy Speck
I do not support guns in schools...not at all. I began posing this debate because of a new law being passed in Michigan that gives the people the ability to carry concealed weapons in schools. Not long after, the events in Connecticut took place.
edward long 100+
Ed Schulte 50+
Trusting this finds you and yours well.
In closing off here, and reflecting of the Newtown Memorial Service of this ev.
......I in my heart feel that the Representative of the "New Hope Church" covered the essence most completely when he pointed out that it is not the 20 + 7 we must be praying for ...because they are in good hands ...it is most important to direct hope/presence to those here in material / earthy form and bring presence within it.
Perhaps(hopefully) the Rep of the Roman Catholic Church was also effective in his directness... when he said ...Paraphrasing here ..."we must move from a Culture of Death to a Culture of Life"
I did not what to imply your support of guns ....only that it is the Presence state of all involved which will calm a potential conflict ..and nothing else (weapons or no weapons)
I wish You and Yours a JOY-filled and Safe.... Holiday Season, and Future
Be Well Be Present
EdS
Barry Palmer 50+
For reasons that I do not understand, we seem to think we can have security cheaply. If we need better security in these places, put the police in there and increase taxes to pay for them. A school teacher or principal should not be expected to carry a weapon.
John Smith 30+
Proponents say the legislation requires those carrying a license to have increased training"
What kind of training? Shooting beer cans in the backyard or ranger school? It'll probably be closer to the former seeing as law enforcement professionals are already carrying weapons in these places, they'll also have to make the training easy enough for the gung ho fat dumb rednecks, who need big guns to compensate for something, to pass, and the people pushing for this armament are gun nuts who'd rather see 20 amateurs walking around with guns than 5 professionals. At least it's not all bad: when the shooting starts the untrained rednecks will readily shoot each other in crossfire and clean up the gene pool in the process.
Sometimes I'm so glad I live on the Eastern side of the pond...
Speaking of the devil, today there were two armed assaults (one with a gun, the other with a knife) against elementary schools, one in the United States (where anyone can get guns, even military ones) and one in China (where you a civilian can only possess a hunting rifle and needs a hunting permit and training): the result: at least 26 (plus the shooter) dead and several wounded (of which at least 3 are in serious danger) in the American school, 0 dead in the Chinese school (there are 22 wounded of which only 2 are in serious danger). In the American school the police finally ended the killing when it shot dead the attacker, this happened in a town of 27.560 people in a state with few gun laws, I guess all the local self-appointed vigilantes were busy fighting crime elsewhere and therefore could not arrive at the scene before the police did (which took 10 minutes).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20730717
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910