|
|
|
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 11:23 AM EST |
Well, the thought was for people to go out and buy their own guns so that when a
state needed to form a militia, they'd be armed already and the state wouldn't
need to supply the guns. So from that perspective, it makes sense for every able
bodied responsible person to own assault weapons.
I neither advocate that nor reject it. Although, if more people walked around
armed, and trained to use guns properly, it'd be a lot harder for things like
this to happen. True, it would possibly lead to increased deaths by
"friendly" fire incidents.
That said, back to the original post about the news comment. There's at least
one flaw in the argument to put in an armed presence of "one person"
in schools. That individual would become a walking target. Best to train
numerous people, and allow any properly trained staff-member to carry. It's much
harder to target a dozen possibly unknown-to-be-carrying people at numerous
locations in a school than a single known armed person.
I have a child in elementary school. I'd have no problem with well educated,
trained and armed school staff. None at all. In fact, it'd put my mind at ease.
It was hard enough sending her off to school before this. I can tell you it's a
lot harder now to not choose to home-school her. I'm armed, and know how to use
and care for guns. I don't have them for self-defence; I hunt, when I can. I
know how to defend myself. I'd be more likely to use a blade, or my hands, than
a gun in a fight. Not in the case of Sandy Hook, unless I had no other choice.
Like not being able to carry in a elementary school.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
