“Yes, placing unionized Federally funded police on fat retirements in schools is a bad idea. Teaching school personnel in armed defense (and dispelling much liberal propaganda thereby) is a good idea. Offering preferential hiring to ex-military people with combat experience to teach is a good idea.”
I agree with the reasoning behind your arguments, but I also believe (prior to this shooting) if you had made the offer to train and equip the teachers and staff at the Sandy Hook elementary with firearms — that not a single one there would have taken up the offer.
In the majority of the “liberal areas”, I wouldn’t be surprised to find the “in-school sentiment” regarding such proposals to be similar.
I realize it’s different in places like Texas or Utah.
But that’s the way it is in the “deep blue” areas...
I live in Santa Cruz County, California, so one should think I would know that. Hence the line, "and dispelling much liberal propaganda thereby."
The simple fix is, as I suggested, offering preferential hiring to ex military to be teachers and administrators. The combined weight of the liability for doing nothing and the cost of creating yet another administrative position on a full pension, complete with staffing problems accommodating days off duty for target practice and training, is a nightmare, especially in rural areas.
Precisely. In deep blue areas, the idea of having on hand at home or on your person a weapon of any kind to defend yourself is viewed as a sign of paranoia or some other kind of mental problem. That's just the culture there.
North Carolina just recently offered free CC classes for all teachers. The classes all filled up within minutes.
Lanza should have been killed the second he shot out the window to gain access to the school.
Armed administrators and teachers would not have prevented him from gaining access inside the building.
A mix of security personnel and armed teachers would probably be best.
I'll bet that would hold true for the majority of all schools nationwide.