Well summarized. It was not the train wreck it could have been. And it was clear most in the audience were not blaming the tool used vs the person who did it, and wanted real answers how kids could be protected by armed people in the future. Many had not gotten to the point of say armed teachers per se, but they were clear that simple lock down (and even a few parents realized locking kids inside a building with an active shooter and no means of defense will not end well) was not working and not a strategy that was likely to work. On short notice, nature of the topic, I thought the pro side speakers did a fine job and I thank them for the efforts.
For me, although I felt most at the table had good intentions (but the road to hell is paved with them as they say), it was clear they didn't "get it" and maybe, after another 100 committee meetings, etc, might conclude continuing to make schools soft targets and magnets for such events is a bad idea and a major change in paradigm needed. I have no children, but if I did, I'd be a frustrated parent right now.
Real changes could be made very quickly that would drastically lower the potential for such future events, but that takes pulling head out of sand and dealing with reality. RIP children. [sad2]
Bottom line is: we guard our money with armed men and our children with "no gun zone" signs.
That's the priorities of the damned.
Last edited:
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
![[bow]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/027.gif "Bow [bow]")
