To: LUV W
Same old story, I bet. Guy wanted to get the media circus and "go down in history" so he picked a place and targets he knew would (1)be shocking to the general public, and (2)be absolutely incapable of defending themselves. No doubt the media will give him what he wanted. It is criminal for schools not to have armed security personnel on site, because schools are about the softest target I can imagine. What more could a terrorist or demented nutcase ask for in a hunting ground? Yet another of myriad reasons not to subject your children to government schools.
213 posted on
12/14/2012 10:17:58 AM PST by
Trod Upon
(A personal readiness for war is the strongest surety of peace.)
To: Trod Upon
schools can't afford armed guards and if they could, they'd be unionized and would be instructed to save themselves first....
if you're going to have kids in school, parent volunteers should be everywhere....its time to become active in protecting our children....
219 posted on
12/14/2012 10:20:28 AM PST by
cherry
To: Trod Upon
I went to a private k-12 school with multiple children from famous (entertainment) families. You bet your ASS there were armed guards.
226 posted on
12/14/2012 10:21:57 AM PST by
Yaelle
To: Trod Upon
It’s another day to be thankful that my kids are home-schooling my granddaughter.
My heart breaks for the innocent blood shed....
443 posted on
12/14/2012 11:11:49 AM PST by
luvie
(All my heroes wear camos!)
To: Trod Upon
"It is criminal for schools not to have armed security personnel on site, because schools are about the softest target I can imagine."
Armed security personnel on site, yes.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson