Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon
I politely and completely disagree. Every Principal and Asst.Principal goes through extraordinary background checks AND (most importantly) already has 100% access to our kids. Even if not permitted to carry a gun a wacko principal or asst. could do the same thing. I say let them be armed. I know it's unpopular to some,...but if the day ever came and your son or daughter was about to be killed, and your vote to have the administrator carry a gun, saved their life, you would be thankful. As for irate students.....not really anything stopping them from going crazy already. My vote goes to being able to defend ourselves. This is one of those issues where there will be very good arguments on both sides, for me though, the scale tips to the side of having the good guys armed.
|
Understood. The main point I was trying to make was that not everyone is capable of being trained to properly handle a gun. So, do we then get rid of principals and staff that can't or won't be able to use a gun, or re-assign them a different job? I'm for the properly trained personell to be present at all schools as a deterrant, not the staff.
If this gunman went to shooting ranges with his mom, which has now been reported, he did know how to load and handle the guns - which was a question of mine. Not to start another debate, but I haven't heard anything about the gunman owning any violent video games. Some of those first-person shoot 'em up games are pretty scary. It's like training to kill in the imaginary sense. Some forms of mental illness can not distinguish from real or imaginary.