[mary]

The reason I was being too literal was to point out the absurdity of the question to begin with.

You say its, "Do you believe in using guns", as if the object or circumstances behind using guns is purely incidental and not worth mentioning - when in fact, that is probably the only thing worth mentioning.

So I'm back to my original point. Guns do not represent a "value system" - they are simpley a means to an end. Whether or not we choose to use that means, obviously has a great deal to do with our value system, or what we're "made of."

There are several reasons I haven't answered your so-called question.

1. Asking me in the first place is really just a way to deflect the discussion we are already having.

2. You still won't acknowledge the complete 180 you did on whether or not the issues that YOU chose to mention were seperate issues, and therefore can be debated seperately, OR whether or not people (and therefore the issues themselves) fall into your nice neat categories that you've already prejudged to be right or wrong.

3. Its really silly to debate something like the finer points of school administration with someone who seems to be a bit of an anarchist. Its like an anorexic asking me for my favorite pie recipe.


By the way, that principal or superindent that you mentioned, that's at risk of being sued by parents if something happens, and it appears they they didn't do anything about it (which for you actually means they didn't choose your solution of arming the teachers) - that risk is never removed....its certainly is NOT removed by handing out guns to the staff. In fact, I would imagine that decision exposes the superindent to even more risk, not less. The thought that this measure would do ANYTHING to eliminate a principal/superindent's exposure is one of the more naive things you've said in this thread. (Besides the fact that avoiding a lawsuit is about one of the dumbest justifications I can possibley imagine for placing guns inside the classroom).