Oh, and one more thing loudmouth: Columbine High School DID have an armed guard who, when two kids started shooting the place up with shotguns, didn't do squat, and Wayne LaPierre should have known that.
Well, I don’t know how to respond to anyone who so blithely throws around insults like “loudmouth” and “fool”.
Check my other posts and replies by and to “cripplecreek” on this same thread to get your other “questions” answered.
Especially the ones about double-dipping unions/police orgs, etc. This IS and should be also a local matter-—yes, the overarching danger is that, in the guise of “doing something”
about this , the Feds will try to take it over, and indeed make it something that can’t be touched or challenged even as it eats up more taxpayer money, and proves itself to be feckless and ineffective every step along the way as a “top-down” solution, all the while further solidifying the mystique of the necessity of public-sector unions.
In conjuring up the scenario of the unarmed principal risking his life to take down the perp you suggest that that is proof of your thesis—but that is what happened spontaneously in the context of NO security at the Ct. school-—it shouldn’t be necessary to put this burden on school staffs, whether they’re teachers, custodians, or administrators-—it’s not what they’re there for. As I think I pointed out, but you ignored, the list of problems with that is endless: do teachers walk around with holstered guns, or just keep them hidden somewhere in the classroom
(where they’ll undeniably get found by anyone with the will to created mayhem, or maybe what they think of a little “mischief”? ) Lethal weapons belong only in the hands of those trained to use them, but if teachers want to volunteer to be another line of defense against some further school massacre, more power to them—it’s not up to me to discourage that, or have anything to say about it. I just think it’ll be a big uphill battle
with their unions, school boards, or whoever makes policy for them/