[Bigh4u2]

In a word.. yes.

And he wasn’t ‘wandering around the school’. He went there for a specific purpose.

So it’s ok to give up ‘some’ rights just because you wouldn’t feel ‘safe’ because someone is carrying a gun?

How many more rights are you willing to give up because of ‘PC’ garbage?

“And it wasn’t the school’s decision; that’s why they called the police.”

It absolutely WAS the schools decision to call the police and there was no reason to.

They only called the police because they feared the ‘big bad gun’ he had on his hip.

[stormer]

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/02/man_who_brought_to_gun_to_scho.html: "Looman came into the school through an entry designated for voters, then after voting, walked into the main portion of the school with a weapon clearly visible." I.e., wandering around.

And I hope I don't need to point out that in a neighboring state and a day before this incident a young man with a "big bad gun" killed three kids in a school. By your logic, if rather than concealing his weapon if he'd simply worn it in a holster, right up to the point where he pulled the weapon, no one should have been able to challenge him as to his intentions.

[stormer]

“It absolutely WAS the schools decision to call the police and there was no reason to.”

No. http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/03/nicholas_looman_not_surprised.html “School officials are required by a state School Safety Response Guide to contact local law enforcement whenever a person with a gun enters a school building.”