Posted by Tina
Details are still sketchy in the school shooting at Great Mills High School in Maryland. The local sheriff said the school’s armed resource officer responded quickly to exchange fire with the armed student who had injured 2 students. The shooter lost his life in the exchange. Nothing diffinitive has been reported but early investigators say the armed student may have been targeting the two injured students specifically.
This is a story you will never read in California. Thanks to Democrats, students here are sitting ducks.
Actually, school resource officers are allowed to be armed in California.
California has long had in place the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995, whose goal is to protect students and staff from gun violence. The law bars guns from school campuses, with several exceptions, including for police officers and trained security guards
https://edsource.org/2018/push-to-arm-teachers-in-california-would-face-major-hurdles/594026
This story from California is about a school resource officer who thwarted an attack without needing to be armed at all:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2018/02/21/school-shooting-thwarted-thanks-to-a-security-guards-tip-police-say/?utm_term=.dc539ab83075
I am not against trained security carrying arms on campus, though I am against teachers doing so; I’d wager it would lead to a lot more stories like this one than stories of teachers stopping mass shooters:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/us/georgia-dalton-high-school-teacher-gunfire/index.html
Re: “I am not against trained security carrying arms on campus, though I am against teachers doing so”
You have a really strong counter-point there. Taking you as an example, California teachers may be far too stupid to pass training and be trusted with a firearm. That could present a very dangerous situation. Armed teachers might shoot themselves in the foot, shoot other teachers, or shoot the very students they would be entrusted to protect, not to mention the potential for extensive property damage due to California teachers accidentally shooting up their own schools.
An additional benefit for the current law making it illegal for California teachers to be trained and armed is that school districts/schools that cannot afford armed security guards will, of course, be sitting ducks. This fits nicely into the anti-2nd Amendment agenda of the extreme left that owns the Democrat Party and controls and runs California politics, civil service and academia since dead students become politicized martyrs to your cause.
Making it illegal for California teachers to carry firearms is a masterstroke for the gun grabbing left. A tip of the hat to you and your side of this critical issue.
Pie, you misspelled “Thanks for the correction; I was wrong to imply that California doesn’t allow armed school resource officers.”
Amazing. You really don’t have a life.
My goodness! Guess having ARMED folks in schools really works!
Funny how that works, no? Well, at least sometimes.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that security guards shouldn’t be armed in schools.
Yes, only that teachers don’t be trained and armed.
So quiet. Could it be because there are indications that the Maryland shooter, also, dispatched himself? … and that the officer may have fired an unnecessary round, in a school hallway full of teenagers?
I am not criticizing said officer, mind; he was very brave. But you will go all “wild west”, “shoot-em-up” over these incidents, and I consider it reckless … childish, even.
And I will line up with the teacher rant below, cause I mean, in what sort of household does a distraught teenager have access to a shotgun?
” But you will go all “wild west”, “shoot-em-up” over these incidents”
“Trained and armed” is not “wild west” or “shoot em up.”
Tina, you are dealing with a Liberal water carrier with major socialist undertones.
Libby seldom seems to read a article through out, the resource officer action very likely put into motion the action needed to saving life’s, but that is unimportant to close minded anti gunners, their sole mission is to come and take all the guns, and they never let a tragedy go to waste by twisting facts to support their zealot like goals. Like clean water and air they use the death of students to not only mask their own incompetence at protecting schools, but to push forth their gun confiscation/control agenda.
They ignore the fact it hasn’t worked anywhere in a effective method of reducing crime, the cities with the highest degree of gun control are alarmingly more dangerous that those cities or states that have” Shall Issue” concealed weapon permits.
Pie’s tongue in cheek post regarding arming teachers was a interesting take , but satire aside, he nailed it with the comment about “limited resources available”. Our need to protect our children while gathered in a unprotected shooting gallery atmosphere should take precedence over every objection to armed and WELL trained teachers on campus. Until a effective plan to protect students is in place, every option is valuable in protecting students. Until then lets put a end to unprotected students as well as unarmed teachers giving their life’s to stopping armed cowards.
A retire officer pointed out that you never hear of these mass shootings in older inner city schools with one way and out, maybe we need to address campus configuration as a starting point.
Armed citizens do a lot to reduce crime, a statistic completely left out of anti-gun ideology. Armed teachers trained and proficient will achieve the same on campus.
No one is demanding that every teacher be armed, that would be the teachers decision, and it should be undisclosed information to the students. What we are demanding is that our children come home after class. Until that once more becomes the norm, lets protect them in any manner possible.
Harold gets it, and thanks for the mention. It is hard to be satirical these days when the left is so adept at oblivious, unintentional self-satirization.
I depart from with your take on Libby though, she is no “Liberal water carrier with major socialist undertones”, she is a flaming, extreme left wing Marxist lunatic…
… on second thought, liberal these days has become synonymous with the extreme left. Classical liberalism is actually dead on the left in general and in the Democrat party. Except among people who loosely identify themselves as conservative, classical liberalism is extinct.
Which reminds me that William F. Buckley Jr. once was asked to define what a conservative is but declined saying he did not know. In several aspects I think of him as a classical liberal redefining classical liberalism under the title of conservatism.
Buckley is, of course, considered by many to be the father of modern conservatism and his mission statement for the National Review can be read here —
Our Mission Statement, William F. Buckley Jr. November 19, 1955