My post was more of a general statement about the intentional use of lies or half-truths when issuing a response to a public attack on your position.

I agree that mental illness seems to be the common denominator in the majority of these recent attacks.

In my opinion, I agree that having armed teachers does not sound like a viable solution.

However, I personally do not think that calling for an overhaul of the mental health review process will result in generating much traction or support.

For one thing, the pro gun control camp would probably feign great offense to such a response on behalf of those with mental illnesses. Such a response might possibly garner further support of the pro gun control camp's agenda from those in the undecided population who champion for rights for the mentally ill.

Second, the pro control camp could claim that such a response is designed to distract members of the undecided population from the pro gun control camp's "real" agenda of making society safer by whatever manner of Feinstein-ist legislation they plan on proposing. Such an argument may not work on you and I, but perhaps it might resonate with those members of the undecided population who are scared and confused and who rely on upon the government to protect and care for them.

I think that the pursuit of the mental illness component is worthy of further consideration and action, but only in conjunction with a direct, truthful, and honest response (that does not include lies, half-truths, or misdirection; and also admits our weaknesses) to any allegations coming from the pro gun control camp.  A little revival of spiritualism, a re-commitment of family bonds, and laying off on the extreme and excessive violence portrayed through all media spectrums probably wouldn't hurt either.

But maybe I'm being too naive...

perhaps.  its basically a gamble.  i just think that when you pull out a response that anti gun folk were already joking about you making, it doesnt set you up for success.

i also think any pleas for a return to family values will fall on deaf ears.  we passed that point in society a long time ago, and i dont think its coming back.  the only way forward is to adapt to a changing world.

am i being cynical about all this?  maybe. 

Finesse is always called for. Always. When you're dealing with politics. Always. Period.

You may have noticed that Truth has very little to do with public policy and the public process.

It is true that if teachers were universally allowed to be armed then school shootings would be MUCH less common. Fact. It is also fact that the idea of weapons being in a school - even in the hands of trained people who are already responsible for the safety of the children - is horrifying.

As to the question of the OP: terrorists are our most likely external threat. Criminals are the most immediate internal threat. An over-reaching federal government is the most consistent threat. Our easy and far reaching distrust and disrespect for each other is the most dangerous threat.

"Who's OUR worst enemy?"

LOL!
It even screwed ME up

.