Your new to the biblical paradigm the great debate, arne't you?
Back when Rick Santorum was running for GOP nominee, we heard the story about how they had a stillborn child, and spent time grieving with the body, and how some media guy was mocking him for it, calling it "very weird" and referring to the vigil as "play[ing] with it."
Now it's "weird" to post a letter of grief in a thread about a mass shooting.
To me this just shows how extreme the divergence is: that one man responds to a calamity by grief and prayer, and another doesn't get why he'd do that when he could be using those deaths for political purposes.
I'll give you this, Philip. I think you're fair and you go by the rules. I do think you've missed here the human side of it here. The dead need to be honored and the living need to say goodbye. It's not all about legislation.
Arm the teachers.
The horse is skeletal at this point, but disarming law abiding citizens does nothing except create unarmed victims for people like this.
Guns should be on campus. Clear enough?
No. Tell me why; that's where discussion happens.
I'll have a shot at it.
Because if a teacher had been armed, she could have stopped the murders as soon as they started.
Just as when Cho did a lockdown on a classroom building and started wiping out Va Tech students, if any of those students had been armed, they could have stopped him as soon as he started.
There is a reason that mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. It's where they can do what they want, confident that no one will stop them. Those who want gun-free zones expanded may mean well, but the effect will be more areas where children can be murdered and no one will be able to protect them.
The bottom line is that as more gun-free zones are put in place, more of us will become criminals because we refuse to give up our rights. As-is, I ignore my state's requirements for concealed carry. I don't actually need a permit like the state says, simply because the Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And frankly, 2 to the chest/1 to the head will settle down most any cop or other miscreant intent upon attacking my rights.
That is an awful thing to say. Cops have families and children and are just doing a job.
go back to the cave you crawled from.
Repellent as his statement was, there is a group in the US known as the OathKeepers, which exists to ensure that gun seizures never happen.
Military and police are encouraged to take their oath, which basically says they would disobey a direct order which would violate the Constitution, especially ones concerning the seizure of legally owned firearms.
I pray that it never comes to that.
Surely nobody can take such an overblown claim seriously. This is a troll.
To play devil's advocate. Police officers, who are trained regularly under varying stressful conditions, manage a 34% ish hit rate when firing under duress (firefight).
Are not the odds much greater than another innocent would be hit, than that a teacher with a modicum of training (and little under firefight conditions) would actually hit their target in such a situation?
Further, predicting which school, or classroom, or even State the next such situation would arise in is impossible. So have effective coverage you are putting a lot of guns out there - and especially in Highschools (and let's face it, Junior High schools), I would worry about a teacher being overpowered/surprised/ambushed and their gun taken and used by an angry student, than about someone entering the school from outside. Students would no longer have to worry about metal detectors - the guns are already inside for them.
Food for thought anyway.