IMO, this is as futile an argument as the gun control one is.
Most mentally or emotionally challenged people do not show a penchant for violent actions and no one can predict when the line will be crossed into darkness and evil, if ever.
Are we going to institutionalize everyone with autism, or Asperger’s, or any other mental or emotional condition just because they have that condition?
If people do show a tendency toward violence, then the warning signs are there and action to restrain that person should be taken.
But that’s not going to prevent a Sandy Hook, just like more gun control laws won’t.
I don’t think that arming school personnel is the answer either. Their job is to teach. It’s the duty of parents and law enforcement to protect children.
The only precaution that might have prevented a scenario just like Sandy Hook was better school fortification. It will cost money, but all doors and windows should be locked and bulletproof and there should be an armed guard present at all times (this is already the case at many troubled schools).
Now that doesn’t prevent an inside job (teacher going on a rampage, e.g.) mall shooting, or a movie theater shooting, or a workplace shooting. Nor does it prevent someone with a truckload of explosives from parking near or driving into a school building.
But it would have helped in this case and it doesn’t infringe on any individual rights.
If parents do not like having their children go to a “prison” for a school, they can choose a private school (also not immune from a mass murderer) or home school. I don’t like going to a courthouse, or an airport, or any other place where they give you an anal exam, but I have a choice just as parents can choose how and where their children are schooled.
Caveat to Post 19. Re going to a courthouse - sometimes you don’t have a choice if you are a participant in a hearing/trial or have to report for jury duty.
The reality is that, all of us, because of our fallen human nature, can very well commit acts of great evil. We also have free will. We can either serve God or the Enemy.
No matter how hard you try to predict and deflect evil it just will never be foolproof, the terrorist and the insane only have to get lucky once, the rest of us have to be prepared or just plain lucky all day every day
“I dont think that arming school personnel is the answer either. Their job is to teach. Its the duty of parents and law enforcement to protect children.”
More errors in fewer lines than I have seen in quite a while, hence the deconstruction of those errors.
1. “I dont think that arming school personnel is the answer either.”
Got something against some 40 years of 100% sucess in preventing school attacks?
If not, consider that the Israel had an attack by Muslims (who else) and decided that watching their children being thrown off the roof of the school and dying a crumpled mass of bloody tissue was not going to happen again.
They armed their teachers and the older students.
From 1973 to today, not one school attack occurred - can you now comprehend the message of arming teachers?
2. Parents and law enforcement can’t arrive in time, but armed teachers are there already.
By not disarming teachers, you no longer force teachers to confront an armed killer as did the helpless Jews in Germany.
Conclusion: The premises in your posted sentences are faulty, the conclusions are therefore invalid.
May I suggest you need to revise your premises.