You are arguing two directions on this
And confusing one with the other. Which are you supporting? Teachers who can be trusted with a gun, or teachers who can shoot expert?
"you can argue that anyone is better than no one"
I said that? Where??
"But I know many who might react too soon and too violently, don't you know any like that?
I don't want kids killed by friendly fire. "
I'd rather not have them killed at all. Back to the trusted teacher issues again?
"As bad as several cases have been, named one where the shooter shot everyone in school."
So, just wait till he runs out of bullets or decides to quit shooting? Cajole him maybe? Has that worked well in the past?
"Total anarchy isn't an answer either."
Describe what you consider total anarchy? Because to me it seems you consider it the possibility when the innocent are attacked and then someone defends them. Is it when shooting is going both directions instead of just one?
"Hey, you're the one that said felons that serve their time should own firearms, even former armed robbers. That's certainly a formula for dealing with consequences."
Wow, you sure took that one out of context. I will repeat that IF they can be released THEN they should have all rights restored to them, INSTEAD of making them permanent second class citizens. You say "robbers" but did they shoot someone? Did they kill someone? If they used a gun as a threat to commit a crime but never fired it, then one could make the argument they've already proven restraint as regards firing a gun needlessly? If they shot someone, then why are they being released and if after many years, who can say they'd do it again? If they killed someone, why are they being released at all? Why are they even still alive?!
All in all though, I do wish you'd quit mixing your subject matter up and quit equating citizen defense to criminal activity and trying to draw some cockeyed conclusions based on such non analogous comparisons.
Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)