In 1975, Islamist butchers slaughtered students in an Israeli school. After that, their schools have been protected not only by guards, but by armed adults (staff and even parents) as well. Editorialist Vin Suprynowicz of the Las Vegas Review Journal has noted that since Israel began this policy, “terrorist attacks in Israeli schools have dropped to zero.”
In March, 2008, a Muslim terrorist spent some 15 minutes gunning down students (ultimately killing eight) at a yeshiva, a Hebrew seminary, in Jerusalem. When police responded to the scene, they did not enter the building, similar to the police response at Columbine. A part-time student who lives nearby entered the building, and leaning out over a balcony, fired twice, wounding the terrorist in another room.
A second part-time student arrived just after that and finished him off. The second defender had grabbed a policeman’s hat off one of the onlooking officers. He figured that would keep him from being confused as a terrorist by the first defender.
And, as at the New Life Church in Colorado -- where Jeanne Assam mortally wounded a killer who was armed with over 1,000 rounds of ammunition -- the defenders shot no bystanders.
If we are genuinely concerned about defending life and protecting students, which policy has the track record worth emulating? On the one hand we have those advocating gun free zones who have only rivers of blood and piles of bodies to show for their policy. On the other hand, we have those advocating armed self defense who are batting a thousand.
We are told that having students or faculty (with concealed handgun permits) carrying guns scares many students and teachers. Maybe so. What is worse … being scared or being dead?