It has been said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When various entities concentrate on prevention (to the exclusion of intervention) the extreme violence continues to cause irreversible harm. What needs to be addressed is what can be done to stop criminal violence when prevention fails (which it has done multiple times over the last 50 years despite the failure of all the legislative actions to stop it). One thing is for certain: there is no one more motivated to stop imminent violence as is the person to whom that violence is directed. It would seem advisable to identify willing sane, sober, moral, prudent persons who are willing to be trained and armed (concealed) who are in daily contact with students (in these cases) such as teachers, maintenance staff and administrators and provide them with the necessary tools, as mentioned, to be able to immediately stop the threat when all else fails. I am certain that some of the aforementioned individuals would gladly volunteer for such an honorable duty. I know there are superb training facilities who have already advised that they would willingly supply the necessary instruction at no cost. It should be noted that the presence of armed individuals in school shooter events in the past have successfully terminated the threat posed. I am reasonably sure that there are many more instances of the preventive value, most likely unknown, when evil actions are preempted by the mere knowledge of the presence of armed personnel. I truly believe that no one of any color, gender or political persuasion wants anything but a totally uneventful and safe school experience for all staff and students. To pose a rhetorical question in these instances of criminal violence in "gun free" zones: suppose there had been just one, armed individual, as described earlier, present at any of these events, how might the outcome have been different? Suppose two, or three? To stop the killing, we must stop the killers, if not by prevention, then by immediate defensive action.
It has been said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When various entities concentrate on prevention (to the exclusion of intervention) the extreme violence continues to cause irreversible harm. What needs to be addressed is what can be done to stop criminal violence when prevention fails (which it has done multiple times over the last 50 years despite the failure of all the legislative actions to stop it). One thing is for certain: there is no one more motivated to stop imminent violence as is the person to whom that violence is directed. It would seem advisable to identify willing sane, sober, moral, prudent persons who are willing to be trained and armed (concealed) who are in daily contact with students (in these cases) such as teachers, maintenance staff and administrators and provide them with the necessary tools, as mentioned, to be able to immediately stop the threat when all else fails. I am certain that some of the aforementioned individuals would gladly volunteer for such an honorable duty. I know there are superb training facilities who have already advised that they would willingly supply the necessary instruction at no cost. It should be noted that the presence of armed individuals in school shooter events in the past have successfully terminated the threat posed. I am reasonably sure that there are many more instances of the preventive value, most likely unknown, when evil actions are preempted by the mere knowledge of the presence of armed personnel. I truly believe that no one of any color, gender or political persuasion wants anything but a totally uneventful and safe school experience for all staff and students. To pose a rhetorical question in these instances of criminal violence in "gun free" zones: suppose there had been just one, armed individual, as described earlier, present at any of these events, how might the outcome have been different? Suppose two, or three? To stop the killing, we must stop the killers, if not by prevention, then by immediate defensive action.