PDA

View Full Version : Gun Free School Zones Need to Go, for the Safety of the Children?


chiselchst
12-15-2012, 7:15 PM
I have watched and listened to several media sources recently, and read a lot about possible solutions (including CGN) to prevent these school shootings that have saddened and affected us all. First of all, my thoughts and prayers go out to all of the people in that community. It was an absolutely sick and traggic event. I cannot immagine their loss, and their feelings...

Regarding a possible solution, the following interview reveals an option that in my mind, may be the only realistic option that has the ability to successfully stop or greatly impact these extremely sad, and heart breaking events. It can be done with minimal costs, and quickly implemented.

I heard this retired NYPD detective on Fox news, with an opinion that surprised me.

http://www.therightscoop.com/nypd-detective-we-need-to-repeal-gun-free-school-zones/

Pred@tor
12-15-2012, 7:32 PM
good find!

SilverTauron
12-15-2012, 7:43 PM
Gun free zones period need to be sh-t canned.

A disarmed area translates to "target of opportunity" for a depraved lunatic. Perhaps if there's no place to safely murder people without opposition, people will cease trying.

POLICESTATE
12-15-2012, 7:50 PM
The GFSZ, like the TSA, need to be abolished.

One enables maniacs to have target-rich environments free from interference for a good period of time, and the other just proves the terrorists are winning.

Linh
12-15-2012, 7:53 PM
Seriously who thinks up this crap? Are the criminals going to follow this gun free zone.

My answer is simple, make the punishment harsher.

For example, you murder somebody then you die, you rape someone then you'll never see daylight outside a cell.

The problem is when these people go to prison for a crime they are going to commit more when they get out.

The legal/justice system need to be fixed. Take Private Hassan for example, why are we bothering with a trial? really what's his defense that he is crazy? yeah we already know that so let's save the money and kill him already.

Same thing with the CO shooter. Really? let's be fair and let the family of the victims decide. If they decide to let him go then cool he's free.

chiselchst
12-15-2012, 7:54 PM
Repealing GFSZ's would:

* Balance the playing field, as only sick and violent people - and criminals - carry guns in GFSZ's, creating a severe imbalance and vulnerability to students and campuses.
* Allow any lawful person in a school, or that has access to a school the ability to defend themselves with a capacity closely equaling the aggressor.

In this recent case, the school was "locked down" when school started, 9:30 am. People desiring entry to this school are required to be "buzzed in", after visual identification. The attacker broke the glass on an entry door, and gained entry (School doors should also be reinforced). The media reports claim the Principle charged the attacker, but was killed.

Had she - or other admin or educators had the abillity to defend themselves with any firearm, the outcome might have been quite different, or greatly lessoned.

Laws don't work, as we all know. They are only effective after someone has broken one. This person, I'm sure it will be fleshed out - violated many.

chiselchst
12-15-2012, 7:57 PM
My answer is simple, make the punishment harsher.

For example, you murder somebody then you die, you rape someone then you'll never see daylight outside a cell.

It makes sense to a "normal" person, but the threat of death or strong punishment via long term incarceration has yet to impact these types of sick people.

They do not seem to be able to rashionale the same way as "normal" people..

chiselchst
12-15-2012, 8:01 PM
A disarmed area translates to "target of opportunity" for a depraved lunatic. Perhaps if there's no place to safely murder people without opposition, people will cease trying.

Exactly! Why create such a vulnerable spot, with such vulnerable children?

zod_807
12-15-2012, 8:07 PM
Totally agree with Linh. We have to get these idiots expedited in the legal system, vetted and then HARSH punishment. At least for the ones that don't off themselves. I mean look at the idiot in Canada (Guy Turcotte - spelling?) but he knifed (outlaw knives) his 2 girls, they had defensive cuts and he stabbed them over 20 times according to the ME. He is out after 3 years...defense was he was "not stable", now he is cured? Seriously? Ugh....

twinfin
12-15-2012, 8:09 PM
The most dangerous place in America is a gun free zone. No penalty is harsh enough to prevent a crime from being committed by someone who intends to commit suicide at the conclusion of his murder spree.

Criminals know full well where to go to find law abiding citizens who have been disarmed by government policy and therefore, cannot fight back.

Gun free zones have to go and it can be done with the stroke of a pen and implemented immediately.

GREASY357
12-15-2012, 8:36 PM
common sense. thanks

chiselchst
12-15-2012, 8:38 PM
I just returned home from an annual Family Christmas get together. I floated this idea with a current teacher and a retired school admin person in our Family. They both scratched their heads, and said that this would be a option worth considering... I would regard both as "middle of the road" politically.

They weren't just sucking up...we don't do that (as evidenced by our previous conversation with the same folks. However, a few more missinformed Family members did critique it is as a bad idea. But they are uninformed, and not respected regarding serious political issues, LOL). But we love them all, LOL..

The most dangerous place in America is a gun free zone.

POLICESTATE
12-15-2012, 8:58 PM
Here's a good billboard.

GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONES
A safe place to murder children

myk
12-15-2012, 9:30 PM
The most dangerous place in America is a gun free zone. No penalty is harsh enough to prevent a crime from being committed by someone who intends to commit suicide at the conclusion of his murder spree.

Criminals know full well where to go to find law abiding citizens who have been disarmed by government policy and therefore, cannot fight back.

Gun free zones have to go and it can be done with the stroke of a pen and implemented immediately.

Yeah but the sheeple don't understand this. They all figure that if we take guns away from American citizens then there won't be any left to use against innocent people. They also figure that laws and regulations will keep bad things from happening to innocents; well, last time I checked criminals don't FOLLOW laws, only innocents do...:facepalm: But again, all they see is: take away guns, eliminate gun violence...

tcrpe
12-15-2012, 9:31 PM
The most dangerous place in America is a gun free zone. No penalty is harsh enough to prevent a crime from being committed by someone who intends to commit suicide at the conclusion of his murder spree.

Criminals know full well where to go to find law abiding citizens who have been disarmed by government policy and therefore, cannot fight back.

Gun free zones have to go and it can be done with the stroke of a pen and implemented immediately.

I agree. Unfortunately, this is not the government's logic, is it?

wweigle
12-15-2012, 9:48 PM
We have learned that unarmed pilots are vulnerable, and we have armed them with guns against box cutters. Maybe it time we except the fact that teachers, and administrators are the best defense against this type of thing. But then again, the liberal educational system will never acknowledge that guns can serve a purpose. My experience here in California is that our liberal teachers and the educational system would rather demonize guns, than take responsibility for their own safety, and the responsibility of our children. This will happen again, and again until we make the changes I am suggesting, no other alternative including gun control will work, as gun control will only lead to the wackos using other types of weapons. It's time the Educational system steps up to their responsibility to us and our kids.

wash
12-15-2012, 10:12 PM
I say give schools a choice, either have controlled access, armed guards, metal detectors and x-ray bags like entering the ninth circuit court of appeals in SF or let faculty carry with a valid LTC (and a shall issue policy to go with that).

Any other "security" policy will do nothing to prevent another attack.

P220
12-15-2012, 11:29 PM
http://www.conservative-daily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ObamaTalkWalk.jpg

http://truthstranger.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/god-guns-guts.jpg

chiselchst
12-15-2012, 11:30 PM
I say give schools a choice, either have controlled access, armed guards, metal detectors and x-ray bags like entering the ninth circuit court of appeals in SF or let faculty carry with a valid LTC (and a shall issue policy to go with that).

Any other "security" policy will do nothing to prevent another attack.

Allowing some admin/educators to "carry", would provide an efficient way ($$$) to address the main issues immediately.

The times of the GFSZ are definately in question.

For the safety of our Children....

P220
12-15-2012, 11:31 PM
08/19/2011
Ron Paul Would Repeal Dangerous 'Gun-Free Zones'

http://www.jbs.org/legislation/ron-paul-would-repeal-dangerous-gun-free-zones


Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Abolish ‘Gun-Free Zones’

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-introduces-bill-abolish-gun-free-zones

badreligion
12-15-2012, 11:41 PM
Unless you built 12' or taller walls, not chainlink fences, around a school controlled access is not possible. Most schools are built around an open air, multiple building format, not like castles and prisons of the past. This gives any crazy sob who wants to harm people and children many different ways to gain access.
People need to wake up to the fact that no place on this planet is safe from violence. If someone is mentally ill, under the influence of drugs, under the influence of religious dogma or just doesn't give a damn, they can inflict untold amounts of harm to society.
They don't need a gun to do it either. Box cutters and cow manure are the weapons of choice of the two largest cases of murder/terrorism in my life time.
Prohibitions just don't work.
The government is not here to keep you safe.
Murder has been a crime for centuries.
If someone wants to kill all other laws all other laws are pointless.
Criminals don't follow the law that's why we call them criminals.
We are all responsible for our own safety, our children safety and the safety of those around us.
When the law prevents us from from providing for our safety then the law is criminal.

chiselchst
12-15-2012, 11:46 PM
Unless you built 12' or taller walls, not chainlink fences, around a school controlled access is not possible. Most schools are built around an open air, multiple building format, not like castles and prisons of the past. This gives any crazy sob who wants to harm people and children many different ways to gain access.
People need to wake up to the fact that no place on this planet is safe from violence. If someone is mentally ill, under the influence of drugs, under the influence of religious dogma or just doesn't give a damn, they can inflict untold amounts of harm to society.
They don't need a gun to do it either. Box cutters and cow manure are the weapons of choice of the two largest cases of murder/terrorism in my life time.
Prohibitions just don't work.
The government is not here to keep you safe.
Murder has been a crime for centuries.
If someone wants to kill all other laws all other laws are pointless.
Criminals don't follow the law that's why we call them criminals.
We are all responsible for our own safety, our children safety and the safety of those around us.
When the law prevents us from from providing for our safety then the law is criminal.

So, I assume you agree with allowing some school personell to be armed?

press1280
12-16-2012, 5:53 AM
While Federal GFSZ should be abolished, the state prohibitions are a bigger problem(I'd wager most states have this even for licensed CCWers). The Federal law allows for licensed carriers of that state to be exempt.
There's also the fact teachers and administrators would be fired if caught carrying(even legally). This can be done on a state level more easily than getting GFSZ repealed from Federal law.

Dragunov
12-16-2012, 6:26 AM
Yeah but the sheeple don't understand this. They all figure that if we take guns away from American citizens then there won't be any left to use against innocent people. They also figure that laws and regulations will keep bad things from happening to innocents; well, last time I checked criminals don't FOLLOW laws, only innocents do...:facepalm: But again, all they see is: take away guns, eliminate gun violence...I agree, "gun-free" = "sitting-duck".

There are just certain "acceptable risks" you take with just about everything.

Do you drive? if you do, you agree to the "acceptable risk" that you, or a loved one will die in a traffic accident. Thousands of people die in automobile accidents every year.

Do you own a boat? hundreds die in boating accidents every year.... Acceptable risk.

Do you drink? hundreds of thousands of people lose their lives every year due to alcohol, not just in drunk driving accidents.

Do you smoke? Eat fast food? Swim?

You get my drift.

We have a second Amendment. There is a certain amount of "Acceptable risk" that goes along with that. Yet, I don't hear "Boo-Hoo.... Ban cars!" or "Boo-Hoo.... Ban alcohol! Considering most Dems I know drink alot, it would affect THEM, so "it's OK". Banning guns wouldn't directly affect most of them (so they think) so, it's "OK" to ban guns.

I have lost family, and people I know, to gun violence. Yet, I remain unwavering.

If both Miss "K" and Miss "V" were to be shot and killed in a senseless shooting, I would still be unwavering. It is..... "Acceptable risk".

CitaDeL
12-16-2012, 6:34 AM
While Federal GFSZ should be abolished, the state prohibitions are a bigger problem(I'd wager most states have this even for licensed CCWers). The Federal law allows for licensed carriers of that state to be exempt.
There's also the fact teachers and administrators would be fired if caught carrying(even legally). This can be done on a state level more easily than getting GFSZ repealed from Federal law.

Can you name even one state besides California, that has criminalized possession within 1000 feet of a school, where a concurrent Federal law already exists?

PackingHeatInSDCA
12-16-2012, 6:36 AM
http://banners.commercialnetworkservices.net/which_of_these_will_prevent_another_tragedy.jpg

phrogg111
12-16-2012, 6:42 AM
Gun free zones period need to be sh-t canned.

A disarmed area translates to "target of opportunity" for a depraved lunatic. Perhaps if there's no place to safely murder people without opposition, people will cease trying.

I disagree.

I don't think we need to get rid of gun-free zones. I think we need to change the requirements for making a gun-free zone actually gun free.

If there's going to be a zone that we label "gun-free", it should have to have armed security anytime people are using it, controlled entrance/exit points with fences or walls around it, and, ideally, metal detectors to make sure the zone is actually gun free.

Calling a zone "gun-free" and having it be an open school campus with tons of buildings and two cops stationed there with only their handguns on their hips... That's not a gun-free zone, nor is it security.

RamonSJC
12-16-2012, 6:53 AM
If some of the teachers and principal at my daughters school were qualified to Conceal Carry, I would feel a whole better right now.
Anti-Gun people immediately assume we want to arm random staff members and give complete access to children so they can shoot themselves in the face, or run around like guns are Nerf toys.
It is my responsibility to teach my family safe handling practice and the basic gun safety because I own.

bluewrx
12-16-2012, 7:00 AM
I don't ever remember seeing any mass shooting in/around a police department or in/around a shooting range. Does anybody care to explain?

CSACANNONEER
12-16-2012, 7:03 AM
Federal "UNARMED VICITIM ZONES" won't go away. They are the politically correct thing to do . Also, the uniformed and uneducated masses who think with their emotions instead of using logic will never accept the fact that these zones only provide safe harbor for those who want to use weapons to hurt the corralled sheeple in these zones.

Hopalong
12-16-2012, 7:08 AM
My view, is that this guy is obviously right on.

However, when he says, "we must take action now"

The action likely to be taken, is the exact opposite of what he proposes.

I'm not surprised

Nobody I vote for, wins

SilverTauron
12-16-2012, 7:16 AM
I disagree.

I don't think we need to get rid of gun-free zones. I think we need to change the requirements for making a gun-free zone actually gun free.

If there's going to be a zone that we label "gun-free", it should have to have armed security anytime people are using it, controlled entrance/exit points with fences or walls around it, and, ideally, metal detectors to make sure the zone is actually gun free.

.


The problem with this approach is that the fixed security arrangements can be studied and neutralized beforehand.

Ill use a military base as an example. A DoD installation has its own police force, armed gate security, and the ability to seal itself off from the outside world at literally a push of a button.

Yet that assh**le Hassan shot up 20+ soldiers on Fort Hood. Why? He probably knew the few base MP's with M4s wouldn't be anywhere nearby when he shot up the place, and a response time from Security Forces/MP ain't much better then civilian police forces.

The thing about concealed carry is that its unpredictable. A bad guy can't plan in advance how to neutralize security he doesn't know about. An armed guard can be shot first or lured into a trap, and a controlled entry/exit point can be bypassed -"hey man I'm new and forgot my ID" -but a concealed carrier won't be detected until its too late for the psycho.

GrizzlyGuy
12-16-2012, 7:17 AM
I just got an E-mail from the Libertarian Party with a subject line of "Halt the Massacre of Innocent Children by Ending Prohibition on Self-Defense in schools". An excerpt:

"We must stop blinding ourselves to the obvious: Most of these mass killings are happening at schools where self-defense is prohibited," said Carla Howell, executive director of the Libertarian Party. "Gun prohibition sets the stage for the slaughter of innocent children. We must repeal these anti-self-defense laws now to minimize the likelihood they will occur in the future and to the limit the damage done when they do."

Responsible gun owners can and do prevent mass shootings from occurring and escalating.


A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.

A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.

A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.

A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.

A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.

A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.

A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.


For several years after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, gun prohibitionists blocked pilots from carrying firearms. But after it became undeniable that guns are an essential line of defense against hijackers and other terrorists when the lives of innocent passengers are at stake, Congress finally passed legislation allowing it.


Congress occasionally does the right thing so there is at least a chance (albeit small) that this could happen. After 9/11, nobody proposed declaring airliners to be BCFZ's (Box Cutter Free Zones) and relying only on that to prevent the next attack.

Scotty
12-16-2012, 7:41 AM
there have been attempts of mass shootings at police departments and shooting ranges, mostly be guys trying to commit suicide.

ipser
12-16-2012, 8:07 AM
As difficiult and as painful as this will be, I think it's long past time that we all set aside our ideological prejudices, ended the deafening silence, and had a national conversation on gun free zones. How many more children must die before we stand up and challenge this unconscionable culture of gun free zones?

nrgcruizer
12-16-2012, 8:26 AM
http://www.examiner.com/video/clackamas-mall-shooter-was-confronted-by-armed-citizen

I didn't see this on the news.

sunborder
12-16-2012, 8:52 AM
We have learned that unarmed pilots are vulnerable, and we have armed them with guns against box cutters. Maybe it time we except the fact that teachers, and administrators are the best defense against this type of thing. But then again, the liberal educational system will never acknowledge that guns can serve a purpose. My experience here in California is that our liberal teachers and the educational system would rather demonize guns, than take responsibility for their own safety, and the responsibility of our children. This will happen again, and again until we make the changes I am suggesting, no other alternative including gun control will work, as gun control will only lead to the wackos using other types of weapons. It's time the Educational system steps up to their responsibility to us and our kids.

Um, one small bone to pick, though I agree with your general solution. I'll illustrate my point with an example:

Last month during a mandatory staff training (kids went home after lunch), the middle school I work at went on lockdown after shots were fired 2 blocks away. While it turned out to be an unrelated crime (gang-related, car chase, etc...), we had no idea at the time what was going on. One of the staff shouted out "This place really should have an armory" (maybe not the exact words, but that was the gist of his comment). He was dead serious, and a sizable minority in the room agreed with him. I know for a fact that my principal owns a RAW, and one of my VP's was telling me the other day about the latest SIG he added to his collection.

There are PLENTY of teachers and school administrators who would gladly carry to protect our kids. It's our %$^#$ job to keep the kids safe. That comes even before the teaching. Our school cop is awesome, but she can't cover the entire campus.

Don't mistake the liberal bent of most educators in California for being anti-gun. I've found the proportion of gun-owning and gun-friendly educators to be about the same as the general population.

vrylak
12-16-2012, 11:30 AM
I'm sure most have heard of one of the definitions of insanity, "....keep doing the same thing but expecting a different result each time............"

The last anti-gun law 'they' instituted didn't prevent the massacre at Virginia Tech or at Sandy Hook (?) Elementary. I'm sure any new anti-gun law will not prevent the next one, if it didn't work it should be stricken off the books, it's not working then remove it. Need to tackle, approach different avenues.

speedrrracer
12-16-2012, 12:08 PM
You guys are all missing the point. Very few of these liberal teachers will allow themselves to be armed, even if your fantasy law was passed. You cannot force a gun + training on the unwilling.

To them, guns are evil and banning them + confiscation is the only solution.

GrizzlyGuy
12-16-2012, 12:10 PM
Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Abolish ‘Gun-Free Zones’

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-introduces-bill-abolish-gun-free-zones

Gun control groups oppose Paul’s bill. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) said the bill would threaten the safety of American families.

“It’s a horrific piece of legislation that will present a direct threat to public safety,” CSGV Communications Director Ladd Everitt told CNSNews.com in an e-mail.

“‘Gun-free zones,’ despite the gun lobby’s propaganda, are far and away the safest places in our country," said Everitt.

Gee, I wonder if Ladd thinks the same thing today? :rolleyes:

phrogg111
12-16-2012, 3:26 PM
The problem with this approach is that the fixed security arrangements can be studied and neutralized beforehand.

Ill use a military base as an example. A DoD installation has its own police force, armed gate security, and the ability to seal itself off from the outside world at literally a push of a button.

Yet that assh**le Hassan shot up 20+ soldiers on Fort Hood. Why? He probably knew the few base MP's with M4s wouldn't be anywhere nearby when he shot up the place, and a response time from Security Forces/MP ain't much better then civilian police forces.

The thing about concealed carry is that its unpredictable. A bad guy can't plan in advance how to neutralize security he doesn't know about. An armed guard can be shot first or lured into a trap, and a controlled entry/exit point can be bypassed -"hey man I'm new and forgot my ID" -but a concealed carrier won't be detected until its too late for the psycho.

Of course fixed security arrangements can be studied and neutralized.

But if you're implying that no security arrangement is better, then you're wrong.

Ft. Hood is an example I can relate to. I was stationed there for a few years. I was in Iraq when the shooting happened. I can assure you, there were no gate searches, and there were no armed guards, where the shootings took place. The buildings he shot up are known as the "SRC Center" - Soldier Readiness Center. That's the place that soldiers go for pre-deployment and post-deployment stuff - everything from getting a will set up to getting their eyes and ears checked before/after deployment.

So, it was a great place to shoot up - bunch of people about to deploy, or about to get back from deployment.

Guess what? After the shooting, now they do random searches VERY regularly. I'd never been searched until after I got back from Iraq. At this building, there is armed security stationed whenever the building is open, and there's metal detectors. I had to empty my pockets into my ACU hat just to get into the building where I was getting ready to deploy. That's right - even Ft. Hood didn't allow me my concealed handgun.

For "not nearby", that's wrong, too - he shot all of those people, and there were MPs on the scene in about 4 minutes. Two MPs were wounded, one very seriously, when he was shot and paralyzed.

Concealed carry can be great for actually stopping problems - but without adequate training, then you've got people who are just additional trigger happy idiots with guns. Mind you, I know that most California shooters who would go out of their way to get a concealed handgun license probably are better shooters and have more trigger time than most cops... But it's still an issue. Unless there's plain clothes security guards everywhere, your security still won't be that great.

Nothing is 100%. But two cops for an entire open public school... That's about 3%. Metal detectors, fences, and multiple armed security guards? Getting more into the 60%+ range that something bad happening gets stopped.

Linh
12-16-2012, 3:31 PM
It makes sense to a "normal" person, but the threat of death or strong punishment via long term incarceration has yet to impact these types of sick people.

They do not seem to be able to rashionale the same way as "normal" people..

True but at a minimum we can get the repeat offenders. Which is a lot better than making more "gun free zones"

Take that dumbass that got out early and then kidnapped that girl for like 18 years. That was preventable if his dumbass was left in his cell. Sorry those types of sickos should never get released.

Old_Bald_Guy
12-16-2012, 3:41 PM
. My experience here in California is that our liberal teachers and the educational system would rather demonize guns, than take responsibility for their own safety, and the responsibility of our children.

Bla, bla, bla. You guys crack me up. Your "experience" sounds pretty narrow. I'm licensed, I'm a teacher, but I do NOT carry at work. There are several reasons for this; although it's legal for me to do so, I highly doubt it's allowed under district regs (I've never checked because it's moot since I don't intend to ever carry at work). The biggest draw to these nutcases who shoot up schools, malls, and theaters is NOT the real or perceived lack of armed people. It's the knowledge that they can go out in a blaze of media fueled sick glory. I see no evidence for the proposition that these sickos make carefully considered decisions based on the likelihood of running into armed defenders.

Calgunner739
12-16-2012, 11:38 PM
You guys are all missing the point. Very few of these liberal teachers will allow themselves to be armed, even if your fantasy law was passed. You cannot force a gun + training on the unwilling.

To them, guns are evil and banning them + confiscation is the only solution.

If the teacher of your child won't voluntarily become armed, request another teacher. If the school will not change policy, find another school that will.

Don't like company selling product x, go to another company selling product x. What's the difference between companies selling a product and a school offering education?

tenpercentfirearms
12-17-2012, 5:12 AM
Bla, bla, bla. You guys crack me up. Your "experience" sounds pretty narrow. I'm licensed, I'm a teacher, but I do NOT carry at work. There are several reasons for this; although it's legal for me to do so, I highly doubt it's allowed under district regs (I've never checked because it's moot since I don't intend to ever carry at work). The biggest draw to these nutcases who shoot up schools, malls, and theaters is NOT the real or perceived lack of armed people. It's the knowledge that they can go out in a blaze of media fueled sick glory. I see no evidence for the proposition that these sickos make carefully considered decisions based on the likelihood of running into armed defenders.

Yeah this is pretty similar to my feelings. I carry a gun most of the day I am not at school. I am not in a huge hurry to carry at school. I might if they let me. I would have to think about it.

However, saying that fixed security arrangements can be studied and defeated implies professionals are running these school shootings. Negative. The blaze of glory and media story makes quite a bit of sense.

I do agree we have made schools easy targets. You don't hear of mass shootings at gun stores and at police stations. It is going to continue as long as school are easy targets.