NOBODY has advocated arming "untrained" teachers. The proximate cause of all of these shootings is the so-called "gun-free zone." All of these shootings were carried out by calculating individuals that purposefully identified and chose to attack unarmed, unprotected persons in "gun-free zones!" The attackers knew they would be unopposed for a long enough period of time to do their dirty work. "Gun-Free Zones" trench on the individual's natural right to defend themselves. The only people that are without self-defense in the "gun-free zone" are law-abiding persons and persons with disabilities (children and those not qualified). "gun-Free Zones" actually violate the 2nd Amendment which guarantees the individual's right to defend themselves by guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. By preventing qualified persons from even having their arms in some places (their car in the parking lot or passing through the "gun-free zone"), they purport to prevent them from having their arms in most places! That vitiates the right recognized by the 2nd Amendment almost completely by virtue of impermissibly narrowing the unlimited guarantee recognized in the Constitution! Every qualified person that desires to carry their means of self defense and protection should be allowed to do so anywhere they go. We recognize that there are some places of great sensitivity and permit them some degree of regulation. By way of example, courtrooms are regulated. However, courtrooms are NOT "gun-free zones!" Courtrooms have significant protection by officers of the court who carry guns! Airports are another such case. If we have learned nothing else by these mass shooting cases, and the Stoneman Douglas in particular, it is that adequate protection has not been provided in most schools! The government is not able to protect us! I must note the case in Maryland a few weeks after Douglas, where a shooter was put down by a police officer on site before he could harm many people, but he did succeed in killing what appears to have been his primary target because courtroom- or TSA-like controls were not in place to protect a concentrated population of unarmed and defenseless persons. If qualified persons desire to carry their arms and submit to appropriate and regular ongoing training, they should be allowed to carry their arms and employ them when necessary. More than one adult died at Douglas trying to defend the students. Imagine what might have been had those heroes had the means to effectively counter the assailant. It is highly likely that the assailant would not have even made the attempt had he known that potential opposition would be present. The whole thing would not have occurred had the Sheriff's Office and the School District not valued certain federal government grants more than the lives of their charges and the maintenance of law and order in the schools! These greedy and misguided officials agreed among themselves, as authorized by the School Board, to participate in a Department of Justice program that turned a blind eye to crimes committed in school so as to prevent the thugs who committed those crimes from being properly punished and having a criminal record. They prevented the creation of the very record that would have prevented the killer from obtaining a firearm in the first place! Maybe he might even have received help had he been properly charged and punished for his earlier crimes! At least he would have had a criminal record and been prevented from obtaining his firearms. Where access to so-called "gun-free zones" is not closely guarded by people having guns, trouble is available to occur! In such cases, we take the risk of trouble by leaving the valuables unguarded! In this day and age, where media and video games constantly pound the notion into vulnerable minds that violence is an appropriate response to all of one's problems! The answer is not in punishing law-abiding gun owners. The answer is in punishing the criminals and protecting the valuables. Where government cannot or will not do the job, willing qualified law abiding persons must be given half a chance. By the way, let's stop using false information. The rifle used was not an "assault rifle!" Nor was it a military weapon. It was a fairly standard semi-automatic rifle like the kind used by millions of law-abiding persons every day to protect their herds from predators, to defend their families and property, to practice their skills and enjoy competition, and to hunt. And let's not limit my ability to defend myself by limiting the number of bullets I have access to, either at home or in the field. I am now old and disabled. I cannot run like I was able to do when I was young, and even then could not outrun many threats -- the only choice I have is to stand and fight! Don't you dare tell me that I cannot have high capacity magazines to use. My life could be at stake!