I AM a math teacher at Brockton High School, the site of a school shooting earlier this month.
Current school security procedures lock down school populations in the event of armed assault. Some advocate abandoning this practice as it holds everyone in place, allowing a shooter easily to find victims.
An alternative to lockdown is immediate exodus via announcement. Although this removes potential hostages and makes it nearly impossible for the shooter to acquire preselected targets, it unfairly rewards resourceful children who move to safety off-site more shrewdly and efficiently than others.
Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful. A level barrel is fair to all fish.
Some propose overturning laws that made schools gun-free zones even for teachers who may be licensed to securely carry concealed firearms elsewhere. They argue that barring licensed-carry only ensures a defenseless, target-rich environment.
But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.
I have several issues with this moonbat's take on things. First of all, I'm shocked by and angry with his version of why the lockdown policy is the best option. Mass exodus (which causes confusion and might save lives because it's harder to get a lethal hit on a target moving away from the shooter) isn't fair? It isn't fair for students to be given a chance to escape because it rewards resourcefullness? It's better to let the shooter have students trapped because that way, they are all in equal danger of dying? "A level barrel is fair to all fish"? Seriously, what is this guy on?
(On a side note, were I in a locked down classroom, I'd be waiting by the door with my pistol drawn. Fuck policy. I will not go down without a fight. Barring that...a freshly dead body does a great job of absorbing gunfire, and I've never cared quite as much for my classmates as I probably should have. The safest fish is at the bottom of the barrel.)
But what I take the most issue with is his last statement. Either he has no kids, or is a lousy parent who doesn't give a damn about his kids. Because, seriously? "But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime" sounds to me like he either doesn't have kids, or doesn't love them.
My husband and I are in agreement: no way are we going to just let someone kill our son. I will go any distance, do anything, break any laws to protect my child. My own ideals, while far less selfish than this douchebag's "make someone else protect me because I won't" view of the world, do not come anywhere near close to as important as my son's safety and wellbeing.
And I can provide for and protect my son far better than any law enforcement officer, legislative member of government, or nanny-stater transnational progressivist.