SR,
Do grow up, please, to construe from what I wrote that I want school shootings shews not only a lack of English comprehension but a juvenile outlook.

Teachers not only are the first line of defence but, unarmed they are also among the first victims.
Why do you object to them having a chance to defend themselves and their students?
Who else is on the spot to respond to the threat?

Remember the Childers fire?
15 dead and all it took was some motor fuel and a match.
Where were the calls to control unfettered access to combustible liquids and igniters?

Steele Redux said "I do love it whenever you start referring to me in the third person as you are just signalling you are on a hiding to nothing."

Answer- Perhaps mhaze talks about Steele Redux in the third person for the same reason a parent talks about a child in the third person. YA YA YA- yes- as you may see little Jimmy has been enjoying his birthday present. It's pointless to discuss things with people who are never going to agree- better to talk with people that will get value out of what you say.

That's nice Steele Redux...

We are happy to talk about Steele Redux's comments but not to him- he is free to do the same

Hi Issy,

Its not so silly, after all its Shooters and Hooters policy to have loaded guns in the hands of school children, the teachers will have to defend themselves.

Shooters policy; "Establish family and home protection as a genuine reason to own and use a firearm and continue to support measures increasing a person’s right to self-defence."

This is a universal policy that would include school children carrying firearms at school for self-defence.

Do you support this policy?

ps, are you running for Sheriff of Dodge City again this year?

I never expected SR to admit that he got the reports on the shooting wrong (that's just not in his DNA) but its pretty funny that, in retaliation for being found out, he has to troll back through two years of my posts to ultimately find a non-error. Funny or sad.

The facts are that there were no impediments to the shooter entering the school and he had every reason to expect that. Had there been staff, or even the threat of staff, inside the building who were armed or potentially armed, the shooter most probably wouldn't have even been there. As I said earlier, there are no examples, that I could find, of mass shootings in schools that allowed the staff to carry firearms. They aren't the soft target the shooter is seeking.

SR whines "Are you really criticizing people for assessments that are revised when later evidence comes in?".

No. But by the time you made your now-obviously erroneous claims later new evidence was already available. So I'm criticising you for using old evidence that suited your purpose while ignoring the new evidence that blew your claims out of the water

Paul,
What’s wrong with that policy?
Sounds eminently reasonable to me, unlike the Greens policy that a firearm must never be used for self defence.
What do you think that a farmer hunting foxes on his property should do if charged by a scrub bull?
Do the Greens envision him laying down his rifle and trying to outrun the bull?
Or perhaps taking off his shirt and using it as a matador’s cape until the bull is exhausted and goes away?

Teachers are the first line of defence, surely you do not dispute that tact.

I am thankful that in the matter of guns John Howard ended the silly arguments of the gun nuts. He had common sense.