...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Sadly ignorance can kill.
You said: "...I threw that gun away the next day..."
1.) Where did you throw it?
2.) Did you unload it first?
I think I can remember a kid bringing a disabled war memento Luger to class for show and tell. But of course, I'm ancient. Nothing even remotely like that could happen today without creating an incident. I'm pretty sure a squirt gun would cause a rumpus nowadays.
It depends on what part of the country, etc., but I've seen multiple eyewitness accounts dating from the 30s and 40s and even 50s
I do not feel having one or two armed guards would have made a difference. The list of fatalities would have probably been longer. If armed guards have weapons holstered with safety on and the gunman caught them by surprise they would have been shot before even drawing their weapon. Security guards would be the first target. Not only that but one or two guards can not cover the whole school. By the time they responded to the shots fired there would have already been fatalities. From what I understand the doors of that school where locked every morning at 930am and the gunman got in anyways. On the same day in China a man attacked a school but his weapon was a knife around 20 children where stabbed but none died. I am very liberal, however, I have not been a big fan of gun control laws. I felt that violent crimes would happen regardless. However, after reading about the two school attacks, the one in China and the one in the US, I realize that violence may still happen regardless but the number of fatalities resulting from these acts of violence can be reduced if access to firearms is restricted. Remember Nancy Lanza died from being shot by her own firearm. Adam Lanza had no prior criminal record prior to the school shooting. People may kill people however the weapon they use can make them more efficient killers...
People keep comparing this attack to the one in China. It's not an exact parallel though if you ask me. Maybe if the guy in China wanted to, he could've gotten a gun. He obviously wasn't as serious about his act as the other kid. He didn't even kill himself at the end. You can ban guns. But last time I checked murder is banned too. So what are the chances that someone who doesn't follow the rule about murder will follow the one about guns?
Again, I believe it's more important to pinpoint these people, and the reason behind their acts, rather than focus on the tools they use. What if MacGyver had attacked this school? Should duct tape be banned?
Banning things is a ridiculous solution which only works in retrospect. People can get something to kill with, but if someone is ready to commit suicide, what are you going to charge their body with?
Exactly my point. That's why I think it would be better to put more thought into finding out how we can reduce the number of people flipping out like this, instead of reducing the number of tools.
Our tools are less the problem than what ugliness could emerge out of our minds. I have lots of tools and worldly knowledge, many of us, I expect could be monsters if we could only find a way to get there from among all our other choices.
If I could only embrace my memories of unhappiness and find some twisted validation via revenge, I think the monster could be feed. I can see the monster, but I do not feed it. Feeding it, would only make my little spot on the planet much worse, and betray a deep a desire to be a positive force or actor in the world.
Can we, as a culture, find ways into a similar state of mind? Are we so many people stuck at the bottom of a deep well of sadness and ugliness, that we can not excape, even for a moment, to see another way?
I can see, at times, the virtue of forgiveness, as one pathway, but the rational choice to not feed the monster, could be another.
James, some constructive criticism: your prose is goop. Reading it is like shoveling a driveway under 3 feet of wet snow. Work on clear declarative and less poetic sentences and you'll be better understood.