Ginzuing the idiocy of the anti-teacher gun zealots and Vancouver Public Schools.

So, the whiners lined up and offered the fringe-leftist view concerning arming teachers.

What DIDN'T they have?

Any plan to increase school security in any meaningful way.

Heather Lindberg was a freshman at Hudson's Bay High School in 1999 when the shooting at Columbine High School rocked the nation. Now 28, Lindberg is the mom of a kindergarten student at Sacajawea Elementary. She doesn't believe more guns in schools are the answer to curbing school shootings.

When she heard people at the Jan. 8 school board meeting of Vancouver Public Schools advocate for teachers to be armed, she vowed to return to the next school board meeting and speak.

"Contrary to what the NRA says, a good guy with a gun rarely can stop a bad guy with a gun and nothing to lose," Lindberg said at the meeting Tuesday night.

She offered nothing to prove that assertion, and if she was able to address how the disarmed teachers and staff of Sandy Hooked could have done anything different unarmed as opposed to armed, it was quoted in the paper.

And that's the problem.

Those taking this view live in a fantasy world, unable to wrap themselves around the idea of what happened in that school, that day.

They have a view of what schools are supposed to be, and what teachers are supposed to do.

Add psychos to the equation, and the picture fades to a soft, fuzzy, white.

What's lost in all of this is the answer to this simple question:

What would Heather or any of the rest had done differently that day to stop the shooter and keep those babies alive?

I have YET to hear ANYONE come up with an alternative.

And that's the glaring weakness in the positions expressed in this article:

Emily Boyd, 17, a senior at Skyview High School, also spoke. "I've never felt my safety has been threatened," she said. "After tragedy happens, there's all that fury. But after the dust settles, we need to step aside and ask if it's been working."

Clearly still a child, and a self-cented one at that, let me ask Emily a question:

Do you believe those children and those staffers felt "threatened" at that school?  Do you believe the kids at Columbine felt "threatened?"  (Before they got killed, I mean?)

NOW what do they feel?

And who cares WHAT YOU "feel" in regards to the question of school safety?  Because here's a clue:

This ain't about you.

And no, what you anti-gun types have been advocating has NOT been working.  Now what?

Except, with Emily and the rest, there IS no "now what."

Peder Erickson read part of a letter to the editor he wrote to The Columbian recently. He asked a series of questions regarding arming teachers:

 "Will teachers be taught basic gun safety or will they receive full SWAT training? Will teachers be allowed to carry guns on their person? Will the guns be loaded? If a student should somehow get hold of the teacher's gun and ammunition and injures or kills somebody, will the teacher be held liable?" Erickson asked.

In order:

To be determined.

Yes.

Yes.

Depends.

Thanks for asking.  Next?

Skyview High School parent Heidi Yewman is an alumna of Columbine High School in Colorado. Although she'd graduated some years before the shooting there, her former teacher was killed in the Columbine shooting. She's been advocating for gun safety ever since.

That she went to a school "some years before the shooting there" is, of course, utterly irrelevant and fails to make her opinion any more valid than, say, my Cavalier spaniel's.

Hey, here's a paragraph that would sum ME up:

Former Hockinson High School parent Kelly Hinton never heard of Columbine before the shooting there, and had a fellow squad leader killed in combat in Dessert Storm years after he left the Army.  He's been counting the bones in ice cream ever since.

And, of course, nothing here involves "gun safety" per se', since the teachers would be trained and qualified on these weapons.

So, the reason Yewman's opinion matters is?

When she read in The Columbian about gun advocates calling on the school board to allow teachers to be armed, Yewman said, "I was angry. Their voice did not reflect what I believe or what the parents I know believe."

Wow, I missed the part where Yewman was appointed to "speak for the parents" she claims she knows and their beliefs.

Yewman spoke at the Tuesday board meeting "to let the school board know that they've done a great job in terms of school safety and being proactive. Most parents do not feel the way to stop violence is to have armed volunteers in front of our schools or to have teachers carry guns."

And, typically, she offers up NOTHING to tell us what IS the way to "stop violence."

I'm given to understand that many Jews, for example, on their way to the gas chambers labeled "Showers" in concentration camps actually BELIEVED that water was going to come out of those shower heads.

And THIS beauty:

A former teacher and now a school volunteer, Yewman is the state president of the Million Mom March/Brady Campaign and serves on the boards of the national Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Gun Victims Action Council.

Nope.... no bias THERE, eh?

See, this is the crux of the matter.  A group of people who view it only in centric terms:  They tell they school board what they THINK, offer no proof of any of their positions, base their positions on feelings... all the while ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room:

If ANY of these people had been in that classroom in Sandy Hook... what would THEY have wanted.... what would they have done?