To the Editor:
Has anyone really noticed the one thing that is common through all the mass/school shooting we’ve had to deal with? They have all been soft targets — no one has been there to shoot back. Maybe we should start there. I have heard no celebrity say they are getting rid of their armed bodyguards. Non of our politicians, active or retired, have suggested getting rid of theirs. Are they really more important than our children? I think not. So maybe it’s time to protect our own as they are protected.
Maybe it’s time to actively protect what is most important to us with more than wringing of hands and moaning about life and death. Hire retired police and military to patrol our schools armed. Take a lesson from Israel. In 1974 in a school shooting 22 children and 3 others died and 68 were injured. It is now a requirement to have an armed guard in any school of 100 or more students. And they do not just stand or sit around. They move throughout the school. Their intent is to prevent, not clean up after.
People immediately want to blame the NRA for gun violence. How many of the shooters have been NRA members? None. In the last church shooting to make the news (soft target) the shooter was taken down when he went back to his vehicle for more ammunitions. Who took him down? An NRA member with an AR-15. What would have happened had he (and his gun) not been there? The NRA is fair game for those who want what? Not protection for our children. A criminal is called a criminal because he has no respect for the law. A “gun-free zone” is an invitation to come in, not go away. Why do you think they are called criminals?
If celebs and politicians are important enough for gun protection, how much more are out children? As the old saying goes, “What stops a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun.”
Barbara L. Maness