Nomercy,
First of all, how did you get a CCW when Kansas is one of the states that does not issue them to civilians?
Secondly, you're telling me that you'd run and hide behind a desk when some madman murdered children? If this is true, you're not just a coward, you're far, far worse. It's this very "I'm not going to get involved" attitude that allows criminals to do what they do.
I can understand not going looking for trouble, but when you're in that convenience store when the crackhead with a gun walks in with a gun, like it or not you're in danger. Now, If you aren't willing to protect the lives of other just because you aren't paid to do it, fine. I don't think that any state's law require a civilian to act in the defense of others. But your desire to look out only for yourself should not preclude others from doing what you refuse to do.
As far as a teacher goes, I think that it's reasonable to state that a teacher IS, or at least ought to be, duty bound to protect their students if the opportunity presents itself. I'd have you note that no one has suggested that it should be mandatory for teachers to be armed, but simply that they ought to be allowed to CHOOSE to go armed and bear the added responsibilities that entails.
We have police to defend the public,
Well, they sure as heck aren't doing a very good job! I'm sure the victims of violent crime (the ones who survived that is) would say that the cops didn't do squat to protect them. And I don't blame cops for this either, because protection of individuals is far beyond the scope of law enforcement. When it comes to protection, we can rely only on ourselves and maybe the off chance that a good samaritan or LEO will be very nearby when our butts are threatened.
This statement simply proves how out of touch with reality you are. Courts have long held that the police have NO RESPONSIBILITY to protect individuals from harm caused by criminals out of their presense, and can not be held liable in either civil or criminal courts for their failure to provide such protection. So sum it up succinctly; if the cops aren't there, they have no obligation to protect anyone, and can't even if they did, and you can't sue them when they don't. Consider this, nationwide there are about one law enforcement officer per 1,000 citizens. If 1/4 of the cops are on duty at any given time of the day, that makes one cop per 4,000 citizens on AVERAGE. What do you think the odds are of a cop being close enough to protect anyone, if contacting them is even possible?
As for the woman outside Luby's...Who's to say someone with a gun on the inside could have saved her? Or maybe she'd have lived and the infant's father inside with the gun is dead instead.
Are you paying attention? The woman was INSIDE the restaurant when the madman walked in, along with her parents. It was her GUN that was outside in the car because at the time Texas did not allow concealed carry. She left the gun in the car because the law said so, and when the nutjob walked in and started blasting everybody, she had the opportunity to shoot the gun but not the means. Because of this, she watched her parents and 20 other people gets gunned down in cold blood. This was the incident that motivated the efforts that eventually won back the citizens of Texas' the right to carry.
Do some checking on how many robbery cases that involve gunfire also had someone fighting back, then cross check how many of those people took a bullet and how many of the robbers still got away (at least temporarily).
Please feel free to post these statistics, I'm not doing your homework for you.
Remember the show "Roseanne"? I absolutely HATED that show, but there was one true thing I saw on it...Rose's sister became a cop, and Rose asked her, "what if someone with a gun grabs you like this"...the sister said, "well I'd just" "BAM"..."you'd just what?" There's not much chance to get the drop on someone with a gun in their hand watching you....people get killed, there's no way around it.
What's your point? If this happens, armed or not, it won't matter. But at least being armed provides the CHANCE that the victim might stop their attacker. An unarmed victim is HELPLESS to an armed attacker who can kill them at their leisure. Relating this to the topic at hand, if the bad guy walks into a classroom and shoots the armed teacher before (s)he can react, then the outcome will be no different than if the teacher had not been armed in the first place. But if the perp doesn't get the jump on the teacher then there is the possibility that, like the asst. Principal that I and jcb9901 mentioned (thank's for posting that BTW, that's the incident that I was originally referring to), that they might be able to end the attack and minimize the casualties to innocents.
Mike