Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Hanky
I really do think the only thing that could of saved lives in that school would have been another gun!
One teacher,office worker,janitor or even a visitor to the school legally carrying could of stopped that sick kid in his tracks. And I doubt there would of been any hesitation in doing so. Some perished while trying to disarm him.
Some need to understand that personnel carry weapons are not tools of death ,they are
carried to help protect and preserve life.
|
I understand this school of thought, but in my opinion it is way too simplistic. A teacher, office worker, janitor could have had a weapon, but would they have been in a position to stop the perp, before he entered the classroom and opened fire? At what point would one recognize what was going on and be able to take action? Would the armed person be trained in how to intervene to not only stop the perpetrator, but to assure the safety of the children? What if the armed "good guy", misread the situation and saw a threat when none actually existed, starting a firefight with an innocent unarmed person? And, most alarming to me, what would be the result of a firefight between someone with an automatic weapon, and the armed school person with hundreds of children in the same building? Now if the armed school employee saw the perp enter the building, instantly recognized he was armed and had mayhem on his mind, and either disarmed or killed him, I would say that was a positive outcome. However I can see so many inherent problems in having armed people in schools, including the possibility of these people going off and killing children themselves, that I think that would have to be thought through carefully. The "code of the west" didn't work so well in the 1800s and I can't believe that most of us want a country with people walking around everywhere with their fingers on a trigger. I have read in several places that there were two armed security people at Columbine High, and that was obviously not a deterrent in that tragedy.