After a high profile shooting like the massacre at the elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, it’s not uncommon for a lot of bad information to come out in the media and even from investigators who don’t yet have a handle on what happened. That’s why we usually add warnings to our initial reports when these things happen. Too many people jump to too many conclusions in the chaos that later turn out to be dead wrong.
Sometimes the response and behavior of law enforcement during the incident is potentially embarrassing or even criminal. In those situations, obstruction of the investigation and subsequent reporting makes things even worse.
So we’ve been waiting and watching the aftermath of Uvalde as the stories and narratives have continued to shift and change and more facts have emerged. Yesterday, a good deal more of what happened that day was revealed and it’s not a flattering portrayal of the law enforcement response.
The Texas Department of Public Safety has conducted a thorough investigation of the Uvalde shooting and response, and presented their findings to a special legislative committee. It’s important to note that these findings specifically excluded witness testimony and other aspects that could introduce error. Instead, they relied only on that which was recorded from security cameras, body cameras, radio traffic, 911 calls, etc., and solid conclusions that could be drawn from examination of physical evidence.
Here’s a succinct distillation of what the police did — and didn’t do — that awful day . . .
WATCH: Texas DPS Director Steven McCraw criticizes law enforcement response in #Uvalde school shooting calling it "an abject failure." MORE: https://t.co/UZ2mN4Lrm8 pic.twitter.com/zXwxJRBS1r
— KXAN News (@KXAN_News) June 21, 2022
The facts of what happened in Uvalde as they have most recently been presented are clear: there was an abject failure to protect students at every level. Building design and maintenance, emergency procedures, building plans, police training, and the response itself were all extremely suboptimal.
But, the police response — which could have saved innocent lives despite other failures — is the most shocking of all. The equipment needed to enter the classroom and neutralize the killer was ready on scene for about an hour before any attempt was made to do so.
A Pattern of Behavior
This isn’t the first time this has happened. Most readers will be familiar with the “Broward Coward,” Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School resource officer Scot Peterson, who stood idly by outside as a shooter killed students and teachers inside. The Broward County Sheriff Department’s response that day was also contrary to all established protocols for dealing with active shooters.
In a non-school setting, there was also the police response to the 2016 Pulse Nightclub attack, which was heavily criticized for the failure to enter and neutralize the threat — for hours — while people inside the club bled out and died.
I know there will be police officers and their staunch supporters who will tell me these are isolated incidents, and that the cops in their cities and neighborhood aren’t cowards. Sadly, as Michael Graham at The Federalist points out, that too frequently isn’t the case. It’s part of a pattern that’s played out again and again and has cost lives.
In every other situation that doesn’t involve an active shooter, police are trained to do what it takes to get home at the end of their shift, putting their own lives first. Legally speaking, law enforcement officers have no duty to protect citizens at all. So, when an extremely rare, ultra-high stress exception to their routine happens — like a shooting in a local school — that cautious approach that has long been reinforced is a hard habit to break when it’s most critical to do so.
I know that there are many, if not most, officers who take their duty very seriously. Cops who can, have, and do run toward the sound of gunfire. But, there is enough risk aversion that permeates the profession to make relying solely on law enforcement a poor response to a mass shooting event.
The Only Sane Answer
“Hardening” schools — beefing up security measures to keep potential shooters out — certainly has its place in the mix of policies and tactics for keeping students safer. But it’s not a complete solution.
Worse, focusing only on hardening buildings can leave students with a learning environment that begins to resemble a prison more than a school.
Reasonable hardening measures, like better fencing, building access control, better windows, cameras, and tougher, lockable classroom doors are all good, reasonable steps. But there needs to be a Plan B in case those measures fail to keep a would be shooter out. Someone who very well may have permission to be in the building as a student, teacher, or staff member.
Arming teachers and staff members is the only credible and proven plan to engage an attacker and save lives when the worst happens. Unlike police, who have now compiled a demonstrably poor record of preventing and responding to these tragedies, the record of armed teachers is sterling.
No school with armed staff and teachers has even been attacked. The hysterical predictions of the gun control industry and anti-gun rights politicians of terrible things happening if teachers and staff are armed simply haven’t come true, even in states where no additional training is required for a teacher to carry beyond a basic concealed carry class.
In other words, gun-free zones can and do kill. Putting up signs and passing laws stops literally no one who is determined to murder innocents. Relying on gun prohibition is an invitation for those who don’t give a damn about laws to rack up a body count for fame, revenge, thrills, or whatever else might motivate them to carry out sick acts of violence.
Having a cop who’s on a glide path to retirement manning a metal detector station won’t stop a determined attacker with a handgun or a rifle. And no, the rifles won’t go away if we pass another law against them.
I know that this idea doesn’t make some people happy. The thought that we’ve gotten to a place where it’s necessary to arm teachers and school staff is sad and disturbing for many of those who grew up in a different time and place.
But that’s too bad, because we are now at a place where we have to say to hell with those people. Saving lives is more important that not offending delicate sensibilities. The opinions of effete politicians and the suburban women who vote for them simply aren’t as important as the safety of children and the general public.
“Gun-free” zones need to end and be replaced with reasonable security measures that can and do actually save lives. Gun silhouettes with red slashes through them do less than nothing to keep anyone safe anywhere.
Arming at least some teachers and staff at schools would give them a fighting chance of slowing and possibly stopping a shooter and protecting students and themselves. And if responding police can engage and help, if and when they arrive, so much the better.
Is that a syringe that is in the red circle on top of the pistol? What the heck?
No guns and no drugs. It looks like they used an existing symbol instead of one specifically for “no guns.”
No guns and no drugs. It looks like they used an existing symbol from other signage instead of making one specifically for “no guns.”
Ir’s one sign fir both. The picture is cropped, with the ‘drug free cut off.
The problem is that not enough people in charge want to properly address the matter.
They want to disarm the citizenry.
It wasn’t that long ago when people would say – oh, no one wants to take away your guns….
For the past several years, there has been open talk in the culture about abolishing the Second Amendment. John Paul Stevens, who dissented in DC v. Heller, wrote an op-ed a few years ago in the NYT: Repeal the Second Amendment. You hear it more, read it more in the culture.
We are not headed down a good road.
The perp should have been spotted on surveillance and not made it past the parking lot alive.
The fact is an “after the fact” school suddenly concerned with “our children” dropped the damned ball way before the perp showed up.
Instead of holding those in charge of security responsible attention grabbing gun control drama queens threw tantrums and blamed the 2A.
RINOs failed to hold the perp and school accountable and instead they held Gun Owners who had zip, nada, nothing to do with the crime accountable. Jim Crow Gun Control kkk nazi joe is not alone when it comes to being a worthless pos.
Nailed it perfectly.
Jennifer, I beg to differ on your assessment. The only thing that will keep our children safe is to remove them from the protection of the authorities to whom we should never have delegated this responsibility. We’ve delegated so many things in our life and we’re so used to it that it seems normal. When in reality the only person who’s responsible for your children is you. You’re responsible for their education their protection and so on. We have to start taking our delegated powers back an ending government control of Our Lives. That is the only solution. Unfortunately, I think it’s too late. We’re going downhill fast with the leadership that’s in charge of our country. If I still had school age children there is no way on God’s green earth I would subject them to a government indoctrination Center that we call the public school system. Anyone can homeschool if they want to. And all the staff members and some of the students can be armed. I’ve never heard of a home school being shot up by some loser. Ask Robert Farrago. Many years ago I seem to have convinced him to homeschool his daughter which is why he gave up control of this blog.
My granddaughters are homeschooled. F### public school’s!
Not everyone can home school.
Case in point: I know a woman who home schooled, however she is getting a gov check for them, she got a letter in the mail the other day that said her kids must be enrolled in a public skool.
Ain’t that neat, .gov control.
let them eat cake! not everyone can afford the luxury of homeschool. many barely scrape by with two parents working like dogs.
ABSOLUTLY! Quick fix to the shooting problem.
The article brings up a point most people are unaware of, the police have NO legal obligation to help and/or protect anyone. This needs to be the first talking point when deciding who’s going to protect the kids. If we were discussing your business, you wouldn’t hire someone who you know won’t work. Why then do we look to a profession that we know has no legal obligation to help. I would suggest armed private security.
Good point.
Uvalde covers the whole gamut of pro 2a bumper stickers.
1. The armed populace are citizens; an unarmed populace are subjects.
Parent were begging to storm in and get their kids. Reports indicated that the police handcuffed and perhaps tasered any who tried to cross the police line WHILE their children were calling for help.
2. When seconds count, police are minutes away
Or maybe longer and then they will stay outside and then lie for weeks about what happened.
3. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Eventually a border agent stormed in, finished it, and saved whoever was left.
It’s hard to storm a room that has a gunman in it. That’s why we need to have a good guy already in the room for the bad guy to face right then and there!
I’m glad my kid’s school is hardened. All entrances are locked during the day. People entering must come through a lobby door and be buzzed into the office IF the office people are willing to buzz them in. The Office people are behind bullet proof glass like an all night gas station. The Office people will then print a temporary photo ID for the visitor and buzz them into the school (or not).
In the case of “or not”, the visitor can leave or be trapped in that little lobby area. If they start smashing glass they will soon realize they are standing in a kill zone.
In the case of “buzzed in”, the visitor can then kill as many as he likes until he runs out of ammo or gets bored. Forget all the massive costs and restrictions and arm all the teachers, janitors, coaches, everybody.
That buzzed in visitor has been vetted by the office staff. They don’t let just anyone in. That visitor would be a parent with an appointment or similar valid reason to be there.
Have you really thought out your response?
When I work security, the first rule is to keep bad guys outside. It is obviously preferable to confront a BG outside. You do NOT want a firefight inside the school if it can be avoided. The BG is happy to shoot ANYONE, but we have to be careful to hit only the BG. That gives him a serious advantage!
My kids’ school does the same, minus the bulletproof glass. They buzz me in because they recognize me. A known parent could flip and start shooting, but that isn’t what we’ve been seeing with these school situations.
LarryinTX, Excuse me? But what costs? Under the program is outlined, the teacher him/herself would be responsible for the purchase of the firearm. Massive costs? The only cost would be the training. We are talking about anywhere from 24 hrs of class and range instruction to 40 hours.
Of course it is PREFERABLE to keep the bad guys outside. But that is a guideline of the ideal. It doesn’t always work out that way . If it had, there would have been no shooting in Uvalde. A teacher who claims they let in a delivery person (BULL SHI*) failed to secure the door.
If a teacher is reasonably trained, and he/she keeps up their skills, hitting the bad guy is well within the rage of PROBABLE.
Couple of things. The BP agent that “stormed in” did not end it. He rescued his kids from other rooms and any kids fortunate enough to be in those other rooms. A number of parents and other officers did the same while other parents were being blocked other cops outside.
A teacher did not fail to secure the outer door. It was supposed to secure itself upon closing, hence the rock to block it open, which she kicked out of the way when she saw Ramos shooting at the school. She had no way of knowing that the door was malfunctioning.
You want single point controlled prison entry and armed security? go ahead. But also stop preventing people who can legally carry from doing so in schools. Give us our fucking rights back.
One other thing, and i don’t know why no one sees the significance of this, Ramos shot at 2 funeral home employees before he climbed the fence. They could have ended it then but Texas prohibits guns in funeral homes. one of them called his wife and asked her to bring him his gun but by then Ramos was inside.
The Crimson Pirate, As far as Uvalde goes, the BP Agent did end it as far as the incident goes. You are raising other issues. I agree that “gun free zones” are a “target rich environment” for bad guys, whether they are criminals or mentally disturbed . Gun free zones have got to be ended. That has to be done through the legislatures and the courts. As of yesterday, we won a great victory in the SCOTUS. It has taken a LONG time to get in the situation we are now. We need more people who have been wronged by the anti-gun radicals to go to court and fight.
How about both?
“Uvalde Proves, Once and for All, that Government Does Not Have Your Best Interests at Heart.”
FIFY
In other words, you are on your own. Prepare and act accordingly.
I would dearly love to find a way to quickly counteract the far-left teacher monopoly which has built up in every state for 50 years while no one was looking, so keep that in mind while reading this post. It is clear to me that in the single instance of school shootings there actually is a way to COMPLETELY end the problem, permanently, without shooting anyone or otherwise causing any different problem. We need to REQUIRE every schoolteacher K-12 to be licensed to carry, and to be able to instantly display a loaded firearm whenever asked by competent authority while on school grounds (ie, without going to get it) or be fired on the spot. Starting with day 1 of the next school year, and overriding any and all other requirements to holding the job. As in, only 2 candidates available, one has PhD in elementary education but no gun, other has gun but just graduated high school, hire the one with the gun. That will END the problem of school shootings. Are we serious or not? 150 years ago high school graduates taught high school subjects all over the country and nobody thought anything of it, I’d bet it still happens in more countries than not. Not here any more, due to lobbying by teachers’ colleges and unions. But an 18-year-old who finished Algebra with a 95 average last year has a HELL of a lot better chance of teaching your child Algebra than an unarmed nerd has of keeping your child alive in a gunfight. And with such a rule in effect, the shooter will be looking for a grocery store or a library to shoot up, anything but a school, where EVERYBODY is armed.
We have several schools in Texas that have armed staff in the school and a big sign advertising the fact. No problems there. It’s time to make this a state or nationwide requirement and those that do not want this can go do something else for a living and no be a part of education.
“I would dearly love to find a way to quickly counteract the far-left teacher monopoly which has built up in every state for 50 years while no one was looking,…”
You need to convince conservatives to become teachers.
Sell the idea of making teaching a honorable and patriotic thing to do.
It won’t be quick, but it would work. The Leftist Scum ™ are far better than we are at playing the long game.
We had better do the same, or we will lose this nation to the actual Fascists… 🙁
Larry, I wish. You’re correct about who is able to teach. My kids go to one of the top schools in the state. The teachers are surprisingly unimpressive. I came to the conclusion that it’s a top school mostly due to involved parents. Also, if a kid is disruptive, they kick them out. Others leave because of the level of homework.
I’ve already sounded off here, saying that firefighting and police work aren’t very similar. However, I’d like to draw on my own firefighting history, to show how armed staff is desirable.
The US Navy doesn’t fight fire like any civilian firefighters. We are on a chunk of metal, in the ocean, with nowhere to evacuate to. When a fire happens, we put it out, or we die. It’s as simple as that. Burning, drowning, killed by an explosion, killed by smoke inhalation – the choices all suck. Defeat the fire, or die.
Armed staff in a school don’t gain some magical property, making them immune to the shooter. When a shooting happens, that armed staff has the same skin in the game as a Navy firefighter – defeat the threat, or die.
Cops coming in from all points of the compass don’t have that same skin in the game. No matter how brave, how good they are, they do hope to go home in the evening. They aren’t committed like the Navy firefighters, until they actually engage the shooter.
Armed school staff, on the other hand, are committed. Some very few may not realize that until the very last seconds, but they are committed. They are trapped in the building with the shooter, just like Navy firefighters are trapped aboard the ship, with the fire.
IMO, 20% of staff ought to be armed. To me, that’s the goal – 20%. Higher percentage would be great, but let’s reach that 20% goal, one in 5 staff members are armed in any given school.
Freaking excellent. I’d say “100% of staff”, but that is arguing nits.
Thanks! That is the most well-reasoned reply I have seen in a long time!
Most teachers don’t have it in them to fight or kill. This is why they work with children. There are a few though, hopefully the one in five you seek, that are willing to take the training and do what must be done.
Hardening the school isn’t just about armed teachers though. You should have a way to keep the bad guys out in the first place. Have you ever had a fire aboard ship that was started by a pirate ship and a boarding party? Of course not. You keep the ship secure.
I want armed personnel in schools who are well trained and required to requalify monthly. I want tax dollars spent to support this. Not as a gun control measure but because to protect kids and teachers, I want school employees armed with not just guns, but training and demonstrated skill. Employees who volunteer for the duty, pass combat pistol training and show themselves capable. All at taxpayer expense.
Why because that is what’s practical and doable and likely to be successful. I’d still accept it without the taxpayer spending and the training, but I would not like it so much.
Spend the money, improve the chances of survival for everyone but the nut job who wants to kill innocent kids!
US Army is not required to requalify monthly, let’s not be ridiculous, what is required is they be ARMED!
Qualifications are a huge arguing point. I think it was Ohio that recently authorized school staff to carry, with as little as 24 hours training. That may be too low a qualification.
Other states have talked about 80 hours training – annually. That’s simply too much.
Something like 40 real hours (not semester hours) training for the first year, and refreshers of 2, 4, maybe 8 hours annually seem reasonable to me. And, demonstrating proficiency with your weapon should be wrapped up in those hours.
I do agree that it should all come at taxpayer expense. The school district, which already collects tax money, can pay for all of it. There’s no point in forcing teachers to pay for all of it. Pay them to sit through the qualification courses, then pay them an extra stipend throughout the school year to actually carry.
Qualifications are indeed a huge part, but that’s a double-edged sword. The more you require, the fewer volunteers you will have. 24 hours training does seem light unless the licensee is already very experienced so that the 24 hours can be just for policy discussion and scenarios right at the school on the weekend.
My volunteer team includes former law enforcement and still we must pass the FBI qualification test every six months using the weapon we carry. We also get a day of training each quarter from one of the former LEOs and we’re encouraged to do independent study at the local gun club.
We washed out several people. Very gung-ho about wanting to shoot, but even with a laser they couldn’t hit paper at 3yds. Idiots with guns are every bit as bad as bad guys with guns. Also, de-escalation, CQC hands-on, and less-lethal tools are taught. Not every violent altercation needs to end with someone being shot. Sometimes a moody teenager can be talked down and we don’t have to traumatize everyone. That never makes the papers though.
So all of you jackwagons think you yourselves are unqualified to carry in schools because you have not had training, or recent training, or a recent qualification that exceeds what police go through. Got it. i hope you are all walking around unarmed right now because you if not then you are hypocrites. Thank God you are not in charge of my rights.
Crimson, I agree in that if you are unqualified to carry in a school, you are unqualified to carry at all.
There should be a perimeter of community volunteers around every school in America. Vets would be preferred but not required. Willing to provide their own guns and ammo.
The bad guy should have a firefight on his hands before he ever gets to the classes.
You mean kind of like how we are forced to pay multi millions of dollars for that for our Glorious Leaders children when they are at school? (Still giggling over the horny rhinos thing)
It’s almost like our dear leaders already have a solution to the problem but don’t want to share.
The scurvy bastards!
How about a tall perimeter fence with anti-climbing defenses and enough mass to stop a large SUV?
SC. Barriers are great. But useless without boots on the ground to back them up.
I lived in a very small community, someone in a brown van had kidnapped a child in a couple towns over.
All us grandpa’s were patrolling the school and streets and watching the kids .
No child walked home without a free armed guard watching from our vehicles.
I lived rural in WV when my first kid started school. We had shelters at the bus stops for our kids. It could snow there. The kids of all ages would gather and wait for the bus. One fine spring day a rabid skunk attacked an 8yo girl. A 10yo boy with a knife killed the skunk. Both he and the girl had to get the shots.
After that we parents worked out a roster. Somebody was always there morning and afternoon with a shotgun to watch over the kids.
All it would take is one person in each school zone to assemble a small group of volunteers and patrol the perimeters. I’m surprised this hasn’t become a thing.
Nobody has a greater stake in whether you live or die than you. All the government benefits the fed can print won’t change that.
Having good people with guns inside a school building worked out just fine. For the children of Jimmy Carter Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. There is no reason why every school building in the United States can’t have the same thing.
It’s time Marksmanship be made a requirement to become a teacher for any person whose job requires them to spend the majority of the work day inside the school building itself.
That includes janitors, counselors, administrative staff etc etc. If they don’t want to qualify with a firearm then they don’t get the job. And they should be required to re-qualify with a firearm. Just like I had to when I was in the army. It was an annual requirement.
And that doesn’t mean every one of them is going to carry a gun. They should also be required to take first aid classes. With a special emphasis on bullet and stab wound care.
Shooting teams should be back in every Jr HS and Sr HS. And part of the requirement to be a team member, will be classes covering the history of the Second Amendment.
Arm the janitors. After a day of cleaning puke, unplugging toilets, fixing broken brokens, mopping floors , waxing the gym, theyd be more then happy to shoot somebody messing up the school.
The important part about the janitors is the keys. They have keys to everything and know the grounds better than any other staff member. Teachers normally only have keys to their class room and a few other rooms like the teachers lounge.
Teachers should concentrate on their individual class rooms. The janitors can free style.
Dayum! jwm just came up with the next Olympics competition! Freestyle Threat Elimination!
I’m a bit old to be appyling for jobs, but, I think I can janitor, if left to work at my own pace. And, I’m a bit more than half serious here – I spent years in industrial maintenance. Kinda heavy duty janitor at times. There are no doors that I can’t pass through if I decide that I have to pass through them.
The funny thing is, no school requires it. Some schools give people the option and it enrages the left. These people that are finally given the option to defend themselves on school property would have done it regardless, and you’d never even know it. That’s why we conceal. It’s none of your business. Out of sight, out of mind. All people want is to give them the option. That’s all any sane person ever wanted with or without schools. We want you to have the option to defend yourself, and hope those of us that utilize that option to carry, never have to actually utilize that option to defend ourselves. But we are ready to.
Since it would be voluntary, If they can’t get school staff to volunteer then let armed parents and family volunteer to patrol the school. Parents have a legal and moral and parental right to be in any area/environment their children are in so there is no legal barrier to letting them be in the school, just let them be concealed armed and stay in the school or on school grounds during school hours. Parents and family will volunteer, especially those military retired family members wo do not work any longer and understand what mission accomplishment at all cost is which is something civilian police forces do not have. just set the standard for their qualification and let them do it. I’ll bet that schools would have many parents and family members volunteer.
Un less that’armed teacher or security staff was in the actuall classroom under attack and a gun-in-hand what the hell difference would it have made?
Are you seriously suggesting that a teacher would have stood a chance in hell against a mad bugger with semi-auto rifle in-hand? The ‘mad buggers’ will henceforth make teachers their FIRST target. No manner ot training will turn any teacher into a professionaL GUN HANDLER and no teacher unless like the PROS at any potential shooting incident, has a gun in hand at all times he or she will make no difference . These mad buggers are NOT nessessarily stuoid and will if they have any bloody intelligence at all just switch methodology and take the shooting OUTSIDE. How the heel are teachers going to combat shooting from a distance? Far more viable is to RESTRICT access to MULTIPLE firearms of a certain kind. Mainly handguns and semi-auto rifles. I do not think that there have been many shootings such as the UVALDE incident using a five shot hunting rifle.
Lets bew honest here. There is NO LOGICAL reason as to why anybody needs more than ONE good quality 9mm or .38 calibre handgun for any self-defence purposes. There is no logical reason as to what anybody needs other than a FIVE shot BOLT action Rifle of a suitable calibre for hunting though I might be convinced to make an exception for .22 LONG Rimfire. Neither is there any need or nessessity for anyone to hold for immediate use more tha 25 rounds for any weapon.
The firearm owners of the USA MUST, like children, learn and learn rapidly the difference between what one NEEDS and what one merely wants. I cannot see that the implementation of ownership like this in anyway goes against the American Constitution regarding firearm ownership. I believe that the constiution mentions a WELL REGULATED and DISCIPLINED MILITIA as well so there is no reason as to why those that wish to own firearmsa should not be reqired to undergo regular training in MILITIA TRAINING DISCIPLINE [The precedent is set by several nations including SWITZERLAND wher by law every male under 65, and FEMALE volunteers have, at home all things nessessary for IMMEDIATE ‘Call to a Arms’ and undergo compulsory training on an annual basis].
In my time I have been an ARMOURER and SMALLARMS INSTRUCTOR in the UK Armed Forces serving as a REGULAR in the Royal Air Force and as a RESERVIST in the UK INFANTRY RESERVES. I was also probably at the top of the top quartile for all calibres of Service RIFLES. Light ‘BREN’ MG and .22 Match shooting and much more than just compentent with both SMG [STEN and STERLING] and Pistol [9mm Browning Hi-Power,- the Standard issues at the time, S&W .38, WEBLEY and ENFIELD.45/38. [total shite both of them!] The other thing I quickly learnt is that effective ‘COMBAT SHOOTING’ is a far cry from any kind of RANGE work. COMBAT shooting demand continuous practice to develope the nessessary frame of mind. Make believe RAMBOS never develope it, they only think they do In fact wannabe Rambos are probably THE easiest ot targets . The HARDEST targets are those that ALREADY have a bloody gun at your head!
Albert, you are an idiot and liar.
It’s just dacian.
So of course he’s an idiot and a liar.
Every time I read one of his idiotic posts, I wish that my cousins in Belfast back in the 70’s would have gotten lucky and put him out of his misery…except that we all know he isn’t in the UK. It’s all just make believe. Sad and pathetic.
Albert H J Hall, Subject of the Queen. If there are armed teachers there will be a response to protect the kids and the unarmed teachers long before the police arrive. For the umpteenth time, what goes on here in the US is NONE of your damn business. You don’t live here. You are not a citizen and you have no say in what we do or don’t do.
Move along, Leftist.
Imagine leaving your children with people who adamantly refuse to protect them, day after day, year after year. Parents are as repugnant as the school employees and the cops watching from their minimum safe distance.
Comments are closed.