Questions for so-called "progressives" on the mass public killings issue:

1. Our president, Trump is guarded night and day by many many men with GUNS (mostly so-called "assault weapons" in fact), yet you fight constantly, tooth and nail against measures to arm key well-trained school personnel, instead ensuring with all your might that schools remain ultra-soft targets for the crazies, protected solely by signs that say "no guns allowed" - so the obvious and inevitable question becomes: Why do "progressives" believe so adamantly that Trump's life is worth so much more to protect that the many many lives of our CHILDREN? Why do you love Trump so much and hate our children? That's the only real, logical question here, and by far the most important one that "progressives" must answer.

2. Please tell us how many total school shootings have occurred, combined, in all of the following school districts: (a) the 110 districts in Texas which allow teachers to be armed, Colorado School District 28, which allows teachers to be armed, any school in Utah which allows teachers to be armed, any school in South Dakota which allows teachers to be armed, and the districts in Arkansas which allow teachers to be armed? Please tell us the answer to that.

3. Relatedly, tell us how many accidents or other problems have been reported in those same districts that allow guns? (since you are constantly reminding us that nothing good can come of this; only bad things like accidental shootings and teachers going off their nut and shooting kids - which I might point out they can do anyway, with or without a law allowing a properly-trained teacher to be armed).

4. Since nearly every kid in nearly every high school in America brought their guns to school, all the way up until the 1970s, during hunting season, and most of the rest of the year too, and took them in and put them in their lockers, etc at times, with the full knowledge and blessing of teachers and staff (this is a FACT), yet virtually no school shootings occurred, what would make you think that the difference is the available of GUNS, and not some other factor(s)? In fact, isn't it highly possible if not probable, that the fact that every kid was well armed just by grabbing a gun from their car (or from shop class where they were re-doing the stock), served as a deterrent against kids coming in and shooting up students, as opposed to today, when they know that the ONLY thing that will stop them is a sign that says "no guns allowed", giving them the knowledge that they can conduct their killing spree un-challenged?

5. Why is it that Israel's experience in the 1970s (in addition to the USA's recently) proves unequivocally that when you arm and train teachers, the school shootings stop in their tracks? They had a huge problem with school shootings by Palestinians back then and the problem disappeared instantly once the teachers were trained and armed. Why is that? And more importantly, why do you oppose what we KNOW works to save childrens' lives? Why do you want more children dead, which is the natural conclusion of the policies you oppose?

6. Given that the muslim terrorist in Nice, France, murdered 84 people with a big truck in one short span of time, which is FIVE TIMES the number of people killed in Parkland, FL, what on earth would make you think that banning certain types of guns from good law-abiding people will cause crazies bent on death and destruction to abandon their plans, since trucks are much easier to come by than guns actually - you can just go rent a big U-Haul?

7. Speaking of Frace - very strict gun-controlled France, where so-called "assault weapons" are already banned, how well did that work to stop the muslim Bataclan theater mass public shooters, who killed 130 and wounded 352 more with AK47 style rifles? If it doesn't work there, what makes you think it would work here?

8. Given that you advocate for the disarmament of law-abiding citizens but expressly do NOT advocate for stripping law enforcement access to those same weapons, we know for a fact that you're not actually anti-gun. You're just anti-gun for the common person; I.e. elitists. So the question becomes: Why do you trust the police so much? Why do you love cops so much that you think they should have the most effective self-defense tools available to defend their lives but not for everyone else? Oh wait, I know: It's because the police are so trustworthy, right?