“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.
You want us to have gun laws like Israel? I don’t.