Interested in the NWT boards opinions

[Paul158]

9 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I have considered it. It is likely because this happens very rarely.

I live in a very different situation than you. I live in a densely populated suburb of Chicago. Several of my children live in Chicago. I used to live in Chicago. But none of us have ever had a home invader.

You used the word when, not if, you have a home invader. I am curious why that is.

One more question. If you live in a community that has a lot of guns, all of whose owners know how to use them, a lot of dogs, and a large influx of military families, all of which serve as a deterrent to unscrupulous idiots AND owning a gun increases the risk of a loved one being injured or killed by that gun, wouldn't you be better off not owning a gun and allowing the communal deterrence be your protection?

While raising my 5 children 35 years ago we lived in town 150 yards from the police department. The fire department was 100 yards away. I didn't feel the need to have a gun then. I have since moved to the country. Times have changed. If I had a gun ( when my children were young) I would done exactly what my father did when I was a child. Instruct them on how to safely use a gun. Instruct them on how dangerous a gun can be. I would safely store the gun. There is a lot of responsibility as a parent when you own guns. I take gun safety very seriously as all gun owners should. 

[Paul158]

55 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Just curious and have to ask for those of you who have called this man a coward have any of you been in a combat situation where you actually had to kill someone else and face your own mortality?  This isn't to say this man failed in his duties but people in general aren't as heroic as they like to think and only a very small percentage of the population is genetically wired to kill another human being.  The military is well aware of this and has put in place training methods to get soldiers more accustomed to actually ending another humans life . 

Very well said. I would say only 1 maybe 2. Le Duke would be one.  Do you think when the officer was being hired during the conversation that he was asked ," in the event that there are 1 or 2 assailants that have rifles or hand guns and enter the school building can you keep all of students safe " ? I would bet it never entered anyone's mind.

[WrestlingRasta]

6 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Very well said. I would say only 1 maybe 2. Le Duke would be one.  Do you think when the officer was being hired during the conversation that he was asked ," in the event that there are 1 or 2 assailants that have rifles or hand guns and enter the school building can you keep all of students safe " ? I would bet it never entered anyone's mind.

The position is literally, specifically, for the protection of the school and its people. I’m sure that exact question with those exact worlds were not asked…but, are you serious?  For what purpose would that trained law enforcement officer be issued a firearm??

[Paul158]

32 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

The position is literally, specifically, for the protection of the school and its people. I’m sure that exact question with those exact worlds were not asked…but, are you serious?  For what purpose would that trained law enforcement officer be issued a firearm??

You can scold me if you want. I just went to the Parkland high school shooting on Wikipedia. Check it out. Scroll down to shooting. It says he was spotted and recognized by a school monitor outside ,walking purposely toward building  12. He phoned in immediately to the school monitor inside the building.. He had a backpack and a rifle case. EVERYONE knew who he was. They could and should have  called a code red and locked down the building immediately and saved all those lives and they didn't. They had time but didn't act. There is a lot more about the entire horrible shooting from before the shooting and what led up to this terrible act. There were a lot of buildings and they were all unlocked. My question is WHY?

[WrestlingRasta]

Just now, Paul158 said:

You can scold me if you want. I just went to the Parkland high school shooting on Wikipedia. Check it out. Scroll down to shooting. It says he was spotted and recognized by a school monitor outside ,walking purposely toward building  12. He phoned in immediately to the school monitor inside the building.. He had a backpack and a rifle case. EVERYONE knew who he was. They could and should have  called a code red and locked down the building immediately and saved all those lives and they didn't. They had time but didn't act. There is a lot more about the entire horrible shooting from before the shooting and what led up to this terrible act. There were a lot of buildings and they were all unlocked. My question is WHY?

I am not scolding you. 
And my question is, what does all of that have to do with a law enforcement officer taking an patch, entering into an agreement, accepting his compensation for that agreement, and then at the most critical juncture of his obligation in that agreement, making the decision not to?  None of what you said has anything to do with that officer making a decision not to fulfill his duty. 
 

Nor does all of that answer: for what purpose was that trained law enforcement officer issued a firearm?