El Jefe wrote:
chaparral wrote:
This is still the craziest thing. I mean it just makes no sense. This is in response to the Parkland shootings, where there was an trained and armed officer that was unable to stop it. How do you look at that situation and go, "I know how to prevent this in the future, lets give less trained people guns." How do you possibly come to conclusion?I think you mis-represent what happened at the Parkland shooting when you say he "was unable to stop it". There will be a trial that determines if he was unable or unwilling.
Here are a few possibilities on how they could come to that conclusion:
THIS is an example of where a school resource officer prevented a possible mass shooting
THIS is an example of an armed bystander shot a gunman From the article "the shooting could have been a lot worse if the bystander wasn't there. No one else was injured."
THIS is another example.
I'm sure you are aware that there are a lot more examples like this that have occurred. Strangely, we don't hear about them much. In the last two above, the individuals who thwarted attacks were "less trained people".
For me and my family, we are okay with our kids going to a school with teachers who voluntarily go through training and are armed.
.
Well good thing we don't already have people accidentally firing their guns at school, adding more guns will surely mean less accidents then! I mean teachers will always behave correctly. More guns is clearly the answer.
is that how other countries don't have anywhere near the number of kids murdered at school? Because their teachers are armed? Is that how they fixed the issue?