Will We Protect Our Children in School?
In the long run, we get the results we plan for. We wear a seatbelt when we drive because we won’t have time to put the seatbelt on the second before an accident. We have insurance when we drive so we can financially and medically recover if someone runs into us. Saying that bad things shouldn’t happen isn’t a workable plan. That is why I’m angry at people who say we shouldn’t protect our kids at school. For the last twenty years we’ve seen mad men murdering our children because the crazy person wanted to get their name in the news. Why has there been even a single mass murder in a church or school after the murders in Columbine two decades ago? Let’s ask the uncomfortable questions while we have time. We can and should save our children, but some people disagree.
Protecting our students sends the wrong message.
Do you vaccinate your kids? Do you take your children to the doctor when they are sick, or do you tell your children that disease is ugly and shouldn’t exist? I think that protecting our children sends the message we love them.
Guns are evil and it’s the gun’s fault.
If we think guns are evil, then why do we protect our politicians and judges with guns? Why do we protect politician’s children with guns? I think we should stop bad people before they hurt our innocent children.
We should protect our children even though some people can’t imagine evil.
I’ve met people who said they could never hurt someone else. Why should our children suffer because a few people don’t want to be bothered with their own defense?
Ordinary people do a good job of stopping the bad guy. When they are present, armed citizens stop or reduce the severity of mass murder attacks 95 percent of the time. We have never seen an armed civilian shoot an innocent victim during a mass murder attack.
Should we leave our students unprotected because of a safety concern
that never happened?
My friend Ed Monk studied public violence. We’ve had up to a hundred people shot if we wait for the police to end the threat. Having an armed defender close enough to hear or see the attack drops the number of victims to single digits. The armed defender saves dozens of lives..or more. We know that works.
“What is an acceptable number of dead and wounded victims to have
while waiting for police to arrive?” -Ed Monk
Despite the fantasy of crazy teachers shooting their kids, we don’t have a reported instance where an armed member of a school security team accidentally shot a student while at work. We haven’t seen it even though armed and trained school staff came to school thousands of times.
We need the armed defenders near the victims when the shooting starts. We can put hundreds of armed-volunteer school staff in place for the price of a single school resource officer.
How should we protect our children?
Plastic “No Guns” signs don’t save lives. Extending “gun-free zones” from the school doors out to 1000 feet from the edge of school property doesn’t save lives. Disarming the honest moms and dads who drop off their kids in the school parking lot doesn’t save lives. Those are the quack-cures of public safety. These false solutions have gotten our kids killed. Maybe they sounded like a good idea at one point, but they failed the test of time.
Our children’s safety is too important to leave to politicians and the press. Let’s do what works.
~_~_
Sources
Armed Teachers are Safe at School
Armed Citizens Stop Mass Murder
Personal communications with Ed Monk- Last Resort Firearms Training
SlowFacts 
Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word… and commented:
We should.. But when you have those that will murder babies in the womb or shortly out of it…Why would they protect any others?
LikeLike
Vaccines aren’t protecting kids they are harming them. Lewrockwell.com has posted many well researched articles on the dangers of vaccines with links to good quality studies and information that is being blacked out by most media.
LikeLike
Our children’s safety is not the goal – the goal is citizen disarmament.
“What is an acceptable number of dead and wounded victims to have
while waiting for police to arrive?”
The more the better – it is the ONLY OPPORTUNITY – to force CITIZEN DISARMAMENT!
No mass shootings – no talk of GUN CONTROL – nothing else advances the agenda.
There is no amount of dead bodies that will result in laws that enable our being ARMED TO DEFEND OURSELVES RIGHT THERE ON THE SPOT!
THE MORE DEAD BODIES – MORE THE OUTRAGE TO OUTLAW GUNS!
Their TOP PRIORITY is to overcome the Constitutional Restraint of the Second Amendment and disarm law abiding American Citizens. England is the model for disarming us. Guns – knives – Too dangerous for “regular” citizens – piles of dead citizens in terrorist attacks – flowers and candles the only acceptable response from a harmless citizenry. IF they get their way.
The argument for SAFETY is a waste of time. They don’t want you safe – they want you disarmed. All they need do is DECEIVE the majority of the population that is VOLUNTARILY UNARMED, and knows nothing about guns and their capabilities (all guns do not ENABLE THE CAPABILITY intended in the Second Amendment) and are afraid of guns, and are afraid of the THOUGHT of guns, that they are safer with guns outlawed. They will then be able to, if not fully repeal the Second Amendment, EFFECTIVELY repeal the Second Amendment. (An “ASSAULT WEAPON” and standard capacity magazine ban IS AN EFFECTIVE REPEAL OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT!) Several states controlled by progressive democrats have already achieved this EFFECTIVE repeal . . . and so far, the Supreme Court has done nothing to reign in the Constitutional transgressions of this political party.
LikeLiked by 1 person