quote:

I have been a military officer and security professional for over 20 years with formal executive protection training and extensive operational experience in the Middle East. The basic tenents of improved security are to improve physical security (which can often be done at very low cost) as well as maintaining an armed presence to stop any threats that get past your improved physical security.

This approach is so common sense, it is successfully used in each facility where security is deemed important. Court houses, military facilities, federal buildings, airports (and on and on). I have never heard of in the wake of an attack on say a federal building, calls for more gun control. They simply improve the security.

Anyone who is serious about protecting our children (I have 3 in our public schools), should consider that locking all the doors with a few cameras and an intercom as well as some number of armed, highly trained staff is what would protect our kids. More words on paper making something more illegal (murder and unlawful use of a firearm already are serious felonies) is not going to protect our kids. Studies in the wake of the decade long "Assault Weapons Ban" showed it no effect on violent crime and that was nationwide (Columbine happened during this period). The deadliest mass shooting involved handguns, not AR-15s and Whittman did horrible work with a bolt action rifle back in the 60s.

If we truly care about our kids (more than about political agendas on either side), we should be willing to protect them at least as much as the typical facility where federal employees work. We should be looking to proven security approaches not feel good legislative measures that at best, would only change the nature of the next attack while providing no physical barrier to it and no way to immediately (and effectively) respond.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Keep in mind, the congresscritters know an astroturf campaign when they see it.

Want a letter to a congresscritter to get read? Send it on paper, preferably hand written. Why? They know a human being actually took the time to do it, and it wasn't facilitated and funneled though a lobbying group.

quote:

Originally posted by dry-fly:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Keep in mind, the congresscritters know an astroturf campaign when they see it.

Want a letter to a congresscritter to get read? Send it on paper, preferably hand written. Why? They know a human being actually took the time to do it, and it wasn't facilitated and funneled though a lobbying group.

Very true I’m sure, but all these dumb snowflakes are getting through to corporations with only their “tweets”.