Replies

After this last shooting, I thought of a way to at least reduce the risk of these happening.

It’s about the gun free zones, and about what I heard on the radio this morning a speaker say to a large group. He said the first responders to this were the teachers and staff at the school, and got huge applause.

I agree. But it’s too bad none of them were armed. They may have been able to respond a little better. And if the perp KNEW that teachers were allowed to carry, he may have rethought doing it in the first place.

But it goes farther. Schools are not the only “gun free” zone. So are the secured areas of airports as well as courthouses. But, interestingly, both of those have metal dedector checkpoints with armed guards to ensure that, since everybody is aware none of the people there can defend themselves, they are responsible for ensuring that nobody gets in with a gun to turn it into a turkey shoot.

Oddly, we don’t do that regarding our children. Perhaps we should.

My idea is simple. For a publicly run place to be “gun free”, those responsible for the safety of those inside will be held legally responsible if they show negligence in their duty to protect the people inside. Having no metal detectors run by armed security guards is, in fact, gross negligence.

To cut to the chase: If you want to declare an area gun free, you must prove you have metal detectors and armed guards at all entrances where a perp may enter, knowing they are responsible, as would be security staff at an airport.

Of course, if they choose to not make it a gun free zone, it means teachers will be able to carry at the school.

So, either way, the risk for a wanna-be shooter is significantly enhanced. And that’s the goal really. The core goal is not to stop them before they shoot more people. The goal is to stop them from even trying. For crying out loud, it’s why banks have security guards.