Via PawPaw's House, I learned of a letter in the Boston Globe that simply flabberghasts me. I'm going to quote a few paragraphs from it (printed in italics), and respond to each in turn.
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.
Can the writer be serious??? Does he truly intend to condemn more kids to die just because he wants to limit 'resourceful children' to the speed of response of those who are less 'resourceful'? There's nothing 'fair' about telling resourceful children that they have to run an increased risk of death! As for a 'level barrel' . . . words fail me.
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.
So the writer's ideology is more important to him than the life of his own child? Sir, you're not fit to be a parent. I can only feel profoundly sorry for any child unfortunate enough to be born to you. Hopefully, he or she will survive your influence and won't need your 'protection'.
Go read the whole letter for yourself. It's mind-boggling!
Grrrr . . .