AAFitz wrote:Phatscotty wrote:AAFitz wrote:Phatscotty wrote:
Now this is at least a sane idea.
However, without training it would be insane.
The issue of training is clearly addressed. Where do you come up with these responses?
Actually, that's clearly just a qualifier as part of my entire response, and obviously so.
Where do you come up with being so unable to understand basic and obvious things?
And if you read that closely, the veterans they are talking about here, are not necessarily the same ones trained in protecting people. They could just be trained Marines, which does not automatically train them for being at a school with young children every day for years on end.
Seriously, please tell me you really are a troll and not as unintelligent as you seem. Would you seriously automatically employ every Marine with security and infantry skills to look over your children? Maybe you would, but I bet even some of the Marines themselves would know better that it would take more training than that.
Of course people who are gonna carry guns in our schools need to be trained. I doubt you will find a single person who would disagree with that. But you can pretend to bash me on that basis. you can do better is all
quick question: how will the reduction in consumption/production of arms reduce crime?