I will not run away

[julianop]

"...We need to get the word out with our friends that our strength is in our numbers, and acting as a cohesive element to protect others...."

In personal situations we may not have the benefit of numbers, but our strength and our effectiveness will be in our unflinching recognition of our responsibilities, in our resolve and in our preparedness.

I didn't grow up in this armed culture, so the issue of armed attacks was never an issue to me. I started thinking about it when I moved to this country thirty years ago; and an armed incident started becoming the stuff of nightmares, looming in my subconscious - and now conscious - memory ever since my first child was born nineteen years ago. I own no guns, but I think many times of where the knives are in the house, of what other objects might be called into action as a weapon, and what my defense strategy would be, were our house breached. Bullets travel easily through walls, so I'm not sure what I could do against an armed  assailant, but at least I now have an alarm system in the house to give my family warning and to call police, and I know what and where the "weapons-grade domestic artifacts" are. There is more I should do, though, and I am now stirred to action, though admittedly without much of a clue.

I should say here, as a point of history, that while I grew up in England - a tamer culture than this one - I joined, as part of my high school education, the "CCF" or "Combined Cadet Force" - a military cadet group ran by masters of the school who had, back in the 60's, some military background. We had a firing range in the basement of the school, and among our many para-military exercises (they were trying to prepare us for commissioned officer-duty, it being a top streamed school, trying to turn out little gentlemen) I learned to shoot .22 and .303, and earned First Class rating in the latter, though I didn't quite make Marksman. I am respectful of guns, but I remain very wary of them when they are in the hands of somebody I don't know and trust.

Back to my point. The aching problem for me, is that I see people arming themselves and thinking they are safe. You can't sit in your armchair, loaded gun in hand, looking at every door and window in the house twenty four hours a day. It is dangerous to imagine scenarios in one's mind, fantasize about deftly snatching up the pistol that just happens to be sitting conveniently beside us, and efficiently dispatching the idiot who made the unfortunate mistake to pick the wrong house and who inexplicably wasn't expecting the owner to be armed. It's a comforting thought, but things just don't work the way we imagine them.

The same is true for schools. Do you better mentally prepare mild-mannered teachers who spend every working day of their lives with smiling little children by equipping them with weapons in the classroom? How do you arm a teacher or a classroom such that a weapon is readily available in seconds in a time of need, yet completely out of the way of inquisitive children? Further, arming teachers means that all would-be attackers now have the bar raised for them, and would go in a school even more prepared. They would go straight for the teacher in any classroom. I am not convinced that such a well-meaning reaction would provide the benefit we imagine. Again, there is great danger in imagining that the situation would transpire as we would wish it.

I'm not at all saying that we shouldn't take preparatory action. I totally agree with you, Steve, that the best possible preparation is the steeling of the mind, learning to keep our minds and eyes open in the skid on the ice, to use your excellent metaphor. It is our mental training and our conviction to be there and to be effective when needed that will be our best potential contribution. After all, any fool crazy and twisted enough to attack a school of kids has certainly contemplated exactly what he is going to do, and is well prepared, and in that he has the advantage every time. Our preparation must not simply be enactment, playing through a fantastic Cowboys and Indians movie in our minds eye; it must include thinking through being in real, mortal danger ourselves.

As motorcyclists we have that certain mindset wherein we do what we do despite full knowledge of the dangers, and as such we are, as a group, statistically more likely to have sheepdog mindsets, at least in embryonic form. I hope so. We are at least conscious of the risk of severe injury and, while aware and respectful, we are essentially unafraid of it. We achieve that state of mind by our preparedness - by the "ATGATT" mentality, for example. And I hope that we all, individually, take stock of what we are inside, of what we can and should do to prepare ourselves for that rare and unfortunate event when we are called upon to act in the defense of others, and when our mettle is tested.

[midnightrider]

Copied from an email I recieved from Front Sight Training Institute,

For Immediate Release: Friday, December 14, 2012
 
Dear Carl,

Please Forward to Your Local Newspapers, Radio Stations, and Television News Stations

Subject: Gun School For Teachers

Las Vegas, Nevada: In the wake of the yet another senseless school massacre, I ask all our politicians, law enforcement officials, and school administrators one simply question:

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO WAKE UP AS A NATION AND PROTECT OUR CHILDREN?

How many more children have to die before we will find the testicular fortitude, as a nation, to put in place REAL policies that will stop a deranged gunman in his tracks, before he can commit mass murder on innocent and defenseless children?

How many times do I have to offer the nation THE solution?

What the hell is wrong with the leaders of our country? Find a pair, and make the RIGHT decision to protect our children, not more of the wrong decisions that create the opportunity for the next lunatic to murder at will with zero resistance!

Once again, Front Sight Firearms Training Institute, arguably the world leader in providing intensified courses in the defensive use of firearms for private citizens, has the answer to stopping further attacks on school children. Front Sight will once again offer free firearms training to any school administrator, teachers, or full time staff members designated as school Safety Monitors.

Front Sight will accept for training up to three staff members from each school, college or university.

Applicants must submit a letter requesting training on school letterhead signed by the top school district official and designating the applicant as the school's Safety Monitor.

Please forward this e-mail to your state and federal legislators, local law enforcement departments and your child's school administrator, as well as your friends and family, asking them to do the same.

Guns and Teachers

As Front Sight's Founder and Director, I understand my offer to train armed school teachers may offend some school administrators and parents who do not see arming and training selected school staff members as a positive solution to violent attacks. However, historically, my approach has worked while gun control has actually increased violent crime by shifting the balance of power to favor the criminals and lunatics.

My offer is not a new idea. In the early 70's, Israel was faced with much greater problems of armed terrorist attacks on schools. The cry for more gun control was heard then too, but Israel very carefully analyzed all possible options before adopting the proactive position of arming and training their teachers. School shootings stopped and terrorists looked for easier targets. Gun control never has and never will stop criminals and madmen from carrying out acts of gun violence.

In our country, every time a misguided individual on psychiatric drugs goes on a killing spree, anti self-defense legislators, watch the polls and exploit the dead victims in order to fool the public into accepting more gun control. It is time our country finds some resolve and the will to tackle the real problem, which is rooting out the actual influences in the lives people hat predispose them to commit atrocities. The problem is not guns. Guns don't cause these incidents to occur any more than cameras cause child pornography or automobiles cause traffic fatalities.

Israel had the right answer. Society is safer when we train and arm our law abiding citizens. As the defensive training leader in the USA, Front Sight is willing and able to set the example for the rest of the country to follow.

Armed Teachers

Dave Clark, who recently retired after teaching for the last 25 years at Junction Junior High School in Livermore, California agrees with Front Sight's philosophy. In fact, Mr. Clark has previously attended a Four Day Defensive Handgun course at Front Sight at his own expense and found the course to be exactly what is needed to train fellow teachers to stop an attack similar to Columbine school and Virginia Tech. "Front Sight provides safe and responsible training to a level that exceeds law enforcement standards." Says Mr. Clark. "Among the many lessons taught, I learned universally accepted rules in justifiable use of deadly force. More importantly, I learned when not to shoot and how to be more mentally prepared to see a lethal confrontation coming before it happens in order to avoid it. The firearms training is second to none and clearly gives the graduates the skill needed to save the lives of those in their charge if ever attacked. If my school district chose to adopt a policy of sending selected teachers to Front Sight for concealed handgun training, I would wholeheartedly support it and volunteer as a Safety Monitor. There is no reason for our children to continue to be victimized when free, professional training is available to stop school attacks."

Guns in Schools

There is evidence that a gun in the hand of a teacher will stop an armed attacker. The vice-principal of a school in Pearl, Mississippi used his handgun to stop and detain an armed killer until the police arrived. It seems obvious that armed and trained staff members inside the school are in a better position to identify the attackers and do something immediately to resolve the situation. It is much harder for police, who arrive on the scene too late to stop the killing.

Lawmakers With Blood on Their Hands

An obstacle to training and arming teachers is the current law in many states prohibiting the possession of firearms on school grounds even when the possessor is qualified and has a concealed weapons license.

Understand that those laws did not prevent or stop the gun violence at numerous schools over the last ten years. The brazen attacks in school after school during the last decade indicate criminals have concluded that 'Gun-Free-School-Zone' actually means 'Government Certified, Helpless and Unarmed Victim Zone.'

Schools Can't Afford to Pass on No Cost Security

Most school districts cannot afford to have even one full time police officer in every school, but they can easily afford to train three or more of their selected staff members to a higher level of firearms training than offered in police academies because Front Sight will provide the training at no cost.

Retired law enforcement firearms instructor, Mike Waidelich from Bakersfield, California strongly supports the Front Sight concept of arming and training teachers. "Nearly every tragedy on or off school grounds in the entire 30 years of my law enforcement career could have been prevented or the damage done considerably limited, by the presence of an armed and trained individual."
 
Concealed Guns

The training provided in Front Sight's basic training classes easily exceeds the training provided in most police basic training academies.

Front Sight proved it on their nationally televised reality series Front Sight Challenge. 80 Seasoned law enforcement officers from around the country went head-to-head in tests of marksmanship, speed and tactics against 80 private citizens-- including teachers-- who had not received any training other than Front Sight's firearms courses. Remarkably, the Front Sight trained, private citizens won over half of every contest.

Teachers will be trained to carry a concealed weapon, so potential attackers will not know which teachers are armed and which are not. In states that have adopted concealed weapon laws for private citizens, violent crime has dropped. School attacks will drop as well once it is known that any of the teachers and staff members on school grounds have the ability and training to stop a violent attack immediately.

There is also scientific research that supports Front Sight's stance on concealed weapon training from John Lott, Jr. at University of Chicago School of Law who published Crime, Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns in July 1996. Mr. Lott's research of cross-sectional time-series data from all 3054 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992 found that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crime and appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed handgun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly.

Gun Control Increases Violent Crime

How many times must we experience another Littleton, Colorado or Virginia Tech or Newtown Connecticut massacre before we wake up, study the research and adopt policies which actually reduce crime and begin saving our children instead of leaving them helpless victims when the next psych drug user snaps?

Gun control increases violent crime yet some politicians continue to tout disarming law abiding citizens as a solution. Front Sight has a better solution.

Arm and train school teachers to carry a concealed weapon. And post a DIFFERENT sign outside of ever school!
 
Look for the RIGHT sign all over America. They are in front of the homes of armed and trained Front Sight students. If you were a deranged murderer, which house would you invade? One with an armed and trained occupant with a Front Sight sign or one who had a "Gun Free Zone" sign in his yard? The answer is simply to any rational person.
 
WHY ARE SCHOOLS ANY DIFFERENT?

Don't have a sign? Get one here: http://www.readytodefend.com/frontsight/

It is time WE WAKE UP and start providing REAL protection for our children in schools. Front Sight stands ready, willing and able to train every teacher in America if that is what it takes! Help us protect your children by demanding YOUR school send their teachers to Front Sight!

Sincerely,

Dr. Ignatius Piazza
 Founder and Director
 Front Sight Firearms Training Institute
 7975 Cameron Drive, #900
 Windsor, CA 95492
http://www.frontsight.com
info@frontsight.com
1.800.987.7719

[stevewfl]

Depends on if you ask a liberal or anyone else

[Awaz]

My wife attributes much of these mindless shooting to anti-depressant and like medicines rather than guns - and she is probably right.

I am not going to advocate that everyone should surrender their guns, blah, blah. But here is my question - what measure is in place that individuals or families takes the precaution that these guns do not fall in wrong hands. Now, I do not equate psychotic killings with murderers with motives - because psychotic killings such as what happened in the school is far more dangerous. I do not disagree to the fact that well armed teachers could have avoided this incident. But the question is do you consider everyone that gets licensed as a teacher of mental health that will not turn their guns on the students, or just kill some one because they perceive as threat? What I find here is pro guns are just advocating give guns to everyone, while anti guns are saying just remove guns completely. Can there not be measures that you can have guns, but there has to be a thorough check? To me, such a measure is not about controlling the guns, but controlling the individual that can have one. Isn't it already being said that it is not the gun that kills, but the person wielding it? So why is it such as heart ache to put measure around that? I read somewhere that in England, to posses a gun, you have to have two person vouching for you as well as an approval from the police chief (this may have very well changed by now). Honestly, that does not sound like a bad idea to weed out the mentally ill.

[turbojoe78]

I do not have a CCL as of right now but I will be applying for one after the first of the year, and jumping through all the hoops that Mass. requires you to jump through to get one.

Then Steve ... I too, will not run away.

[Rhino]

My wife attributes much of these mindless shooting to anti-depressant and like medicines rather than guns - and she is probably right.

I am not going to advocate that everyone should surrender their guns, blah, blah. But here is my question - what measure is in place that individuals or families takes the precaution that these guns do not fall in wrong hands. Now, I do not equate psychotic killings with murderers with motives - because psychotic killings such as what happened in the school is far more dangerous. I do not disagree to the fact that well armed teachers could have avoided this incident. But the question is do you consider everyone that gets licensed as a teacher of mental health that will not turn their guns on the students, or just kill some one because they perceive as threat? What I find here is pro guns are just advocating give guns to everyone, while anti guns are saying just remove guns completely. Can there not be measures that you can have guns, but there has to be a thorough check? To me, such a measure is not about controlling the guns, but controlling the individual that can have one. Isn't it already being said that it is not the gun that kills, but the person wielding it? So why is it such as heart ache to put measure around that? I read somewhere that in England, to posses a gun, you have to have two person vouching for you as well as an approval from the police chief (this may have very well changed by now). Honestly, that does not sound like a bad idea to weed out the mentally ill.

I'm fine with denying firearms to people that have shown they cannot be trusted such as felons or someone certified mentally ill and a danger to others by a board certified doctor. Such is already the case in this country and most of the world. But what you are advocating is a "guilty until proven innocent" type of law. I have never met any of my police chief's. How would they have any idea of my competence? Did this guy have any prior offenses or indications that he was a monster? I know from personal experience that people can show absolutely no evidence of violent tendencies and then one day murder 2 people out of the blue.

You Already have to have a background check and have training to carry concealed in all states that have concealed carry permits except Vermont. In Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey you have to have a license to buy a gun. It is prohibited for anyone other then police to carry a gun into a school in Connecticut and in most states. At Columbine I read that 18 firearms laws were broken before one shot was fired. Laws only deter the law abiding and reasonable. The worst school massacre in the US occurred on May 18, 1927, 44 dead and 58 injured and he didn't use a gun to do it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Kehoe

IMHO there is no perfect solution. But we must first understand that in a free society we are by definition a soft target. Better that than a police state. Second, at least allow teachers willing to get training and a background check to carry at school. My Son is a teacher in a middle school. He has extensive training and a holder of a CCW permit. He is not even allowed to have a weapon in his truck in the parking lot. Tell me how that is helpful.

[Snibbor]

My wife attributes much of these mindless shooting to anti-depressant and like medicines rather than guns - and she is probably right.

I am not going to advocate that everyone should surrender their guns, blah, blah. But here is my question - what measure is in place that individuals or families takes the precaution that these guns do not fall in wrong hands. Now, I do not equate psychotic killings with murderers with motives - because psychotic killings such as what happened in the school is far more dangerous. I do not disagree to the fact that well armed teachers could have avoided this incident. But the question is do you consider everyone that gets licensed as a teacher of mental health that will not turn their guns on the students, or just kill some one because they perceive as threat? What I find here is pro guns are just advocating give guns to everyone, while anti guns are saying just remove guns completely. Can there not be measures that you can have guns, but there has to be a thorough check? To me, such a measure is not about controlling the guns, but controlling the individual that can have one. Isn't it already being said that it is not the gun that kills, but the person wielding it? So why is it such as heart ache to put measure around that? I read somewhere that in England, to posses a gun, you have to have two person vouching for you as well as an approval from the police chief (this may have very well changed by now). Honestly, that does not sound like a bad idea to weed out the mentally ill.

It has been reported (by the lib media) that the individual (Adam?) in Conn attepted to purchase a firearm a few days before the attack but was denied.  It was also reported (again by the lib media) that the Oregon shooter stole the firearms he used.  Banning arms isn't going to stop a thing.  There are millions of them in this country (a fair share owned by me ).  You can't confiscate them all, way too many would resist.
I hate to say it, but there is no way to prevent human violence.  It's been happening since the dawn of time.  But I do want the ability/opportunity to confront it.

[paulthibodeaux]

Before Madelin Murray Ohare and one LIBERAL judge took prayer out of school, this kind of thing did not happen.
Just think, one armed person could have stopped.

[Steve in Sunny Fla]

Here's my suggestion - Several folks at each school are probably willing to step up and be the sheepdogs. In order to do so, they must gain their ccw licence - THEN AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE take a class / program developed by law enforcement to be an active shooter immediate responder. Those who pass are then put on the "allowed" list for the given school they have business with. Example - My daughter is in high school. I go to her school for issues / programs, and sports. I would be "on the list" if I jumped the hoops I outlined.
  I also want the person who is "stepping up" to be financially responsible for the training to weed out the wannabe's, or those who are "questionable". The vetting process can / should be more stringent also.

  Keep in mind that the reason police respond - and the reason we want them to respond - is because they are armed, and society trusts them. there are other good, trustworthy people among us who are not police, but are cut from the same cloth. This should be recognized and embraced. The civilian force is much larger, and much more likely to respond more rapidly.

  As far as these unnamed cowards are concerned, all that stuff about them  being "more prepared" is hogwash. If they were willing to "fight" they wouldn't choose movie theaters and first graders. Deny them their names (no infamy, just anonymity)  and let them know that bullets are coming back at them. I bet things will change. Steve

[Awaz]

Here's my suggestion - Several folks at each school are probably willing to step up and be the sheepdogs. In order to do so, they must gain their ccw licence - THEN AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE take a class / program developed by law enforcement to be an active shooter immediate responder. Those who pass are then put on the "allowed" list for the given school they have business with. Example - My daughter is in high school. I go to her school for issues / programs, and sports. I would be "on the list" if I jumped the hoops I outlined.
  I also want the person who is "stepping up" to be financially responsible for the training to weed out the wannabe's, or those who are "questionable". The vetting process can / should be more stringent also.

  Keep in mind that the reason police respond - and the reason we want them to respond - is because they are armed, and society trusts them. there are other good, trustworthy people among us who are not police, but are cut from the same cloth. This should be recognized and embraced. The civilian force is much larger, and much more likely to respond more rapidly.

  As far as these unnamed cowards are concerned, all that stuff about them  being "more prepared" is hogwash. If they were willing to "fight" they wouldn't choose movie theaters and first graders. Deny them their names (no infamy, just anonymity)  and let them know that bullets are coming back at them. I bet things will change. Steve

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of training selected teachers just like you would a cop and have them conceal carry - these shooting kids gotta stop. And I like both your thoughts - denying these morons media coverage so another moron do not think they get their fame-infamy via such a means.

[jim_de_hunter]

I have a CCW and I am a teacher.  However, by law I am not allowed to carry in my work place.  So, because "I will not run away", I will be forced to use broom sticks and chalk dust to fight a shooter that comes to my school.  So be it.

[zsiska]

Train the teachers (the stable ones) and arm them so the can open carry.
For those who carry and are properly trained, you carry not to protect just yourself, but to protect others.  Run towards the evil.

You don't want the trained teachers carrying openly.  You need for them to have the element of surprise against any would be attacker.  For a would be attacker that might know the school (or whatever the target may be), you would not want him or her to know who is carrying and to look for.  Eventhough as crazy as these people that carry out these acts are, in my mind they have one goal and are not real organized.  They set out to accomplish what they may think is right and that is it.  So having that element of surprise of having concealed carrying faculty is much better than open carry or even a uniformed security or resource officer.

[VirginiaJim]

Before Madelin Murray Ohare and one LIBERAL judge took prayer out of school, this kind of thing did not happen.
Just think, one armed person could have stopped.

Could you delve a bit deeper into that one?  Not sure I understand how that has got anything to do with what happened in Sandy Hook.

[paulthibodeaux]

Liberalism! Liberals have taken discipline away from parents. They talk about separation of church and state. There is no such thing in the Constitution.
No religion, and no discipline, and you see what happens. I am not religious, don't go to church, but I was brought up to respect my elders and to do the right thing. Taking prayer out of schools was just the start. Liberal judges have Taken away parents right to discipline their kids. Children should not be beaten, but a good spanking never hurt anyone, and a little prayer at school never hurt anyone.

[Awaz]

Liberalism! Liberals have taken discipline away from parents. They talk about separation of church and state. There is no such thing in the Constitution.
No religion, and no discipline, and you see what happens. I am not religious, don't go to church, but I was brought up to respect my elders and to do the right thing. Taking prayer out of schools was just the start. Liberal judges have Taken away parents right to discipline their kids. Children should not be beaten, but a good spanking never hurt anyone, and a little prayer at school never hurt anyone.

I go to Church every sunday and I am involved in teaching the gospel to kids 7 - 8 years old at my Church. Yet, I do not think that has any corelation to psychos shooting at schools.
In regards to prayer, would you object if one day a student want to say a muslim prayer? Another day a buddhist prayer? As far as spaking goes, I did get spanked by teachers and parents alike, but I bore the burnt of some abusive teachers as well. I once got spanked with a cane (broke my skin) just because I did not draw a line straight enough - and this was a Catholic school. I see everyday how some parents treat their kids - no regards whatsoever - some put their kids in medication so they are zoned out. I am not disagreeing that prayer and discipline is good, but that is somethign that starts at home - not just rely on schools.

[Steve in Sunny Fla]

I have a CCW and I am a teacher.  However, by law I am not allowed to carry in my work place.  So, because "I will not run away", I will be forced to use broom sticks and chalk dust to fight a shooter that comes to my school.  So be it.

  Jim, you have more to offer on this than any of the rest of us, as you're in the classroom daily (I assume). I'd really like to hear any other thoughts you have on this, what you've had to come to grips with internally knowing you are "the front line" etc... and TIA -  - steve

[connie1]

I think spending time with your kids will save a thousand spankings.  Providing a positive role model lets them know what the correct way to act is versus the 'ape' mentality they might learn from the masses (I notice kids aspire to the lowest common denominator).
Sitting around the table for half an hour after a family meal, which we try for daily, lets kids discuss their days and provides a time for parents to provide guidance and reassurance.  Feedback about ways they handled situations and problems helps them figure out the socially acceptable ways they should act in difficult situations.
I'm very proud of how my kids are turning out and also how my son is already showing sheepdog qualities.
We also make the effort not to be helicopter parents...let them learn for themselves and be sure to help them up after a fall.  I think it leads to strong and confident adults... the kind that tend to become sheepdogs.

Can't wait to hear what your President will come up with this week.  The discussion this past weekend from the flock was all about controlling the firearms that the sheepdogs will use to protect them.  I must be fairly dense cause I can't even fathom how this line of thought comes about.
My son likens it to the war on drugs.  Dope has been illegal for a century and it would apparently take ten minutes to get some.
It's mostly the flock that consumes dope, maybe they could understand this line of argument.

[Cuda]

I was never HIT at home,  I was the youngest of four , my older sisters who were twins would beg my father to hit me ( I guess they got hit) I don't see why anyone NEEDS to hit anyone.
  During 12 years of Catholic school I only had one teacher , a Nun from France that beat your hands with  a steel ruler.
 When I was 18 (and in college) I got a job at a rock and roll night club , live music six nights a week 10cent beer nights twice a week and everything that goes with drunk people.
When I was hired  to check ID & bounce they were looking for someone in their 40's with a cool head because they owned two of these clubs and had several lawsuits because they hired large body builders who enjoyed   hitting others.
I played sports and lifted weights but never started fights, I soon became assistant manager and yes I hired a large powerlifter/body builder 4 th degree black belt martial arts ( to protect me) , and we never had to hit anyone , we talked people down.
I'm a Democrat ,  own  four pistols  one rifle and one shotgun ( no assault rifles)
and no one is taking them away.

[Cholla]

I find it funnny the people who say arming teachers will make the problem worse are the same who advocate putting an aemed cop in the school....

[midnightrider]

I think spending time with your kids will save a thousand spankings.  Providing a positive role model lets them know what the correct way to act is versus the 'ape' mentality they might learn from the masses (I notice kids aspire to the lowest common denominator).
Sitting around the table for half an hour after a family meal, which we try for daily, lets kids discuss their days and provides a time for parents to provide guidance and reassurance.  Feedback about ways they handled situations and problems helps them figure out the socially acceptable ways they should act in difficult situations.
I'm very proud of how my kids are turning out and also how my son is already showing sheepdog qualities.
We also make the effort not to be helicopter parents...let them learn for themselves and be sure to help them up after a fall.  I think it leads to strong and confident adults... the kind that tend to become sheepdogs.

+1 We have done the same thing with our three children. Our 21 year old son is now a certified police officer who approuches his job with a true servant/protector attitude. His captain has told us that our son is one of the most level headed officers he has and he wishes more were like him. Yea, I'm a proud dad.
My 18 year old daughter is in collage to be a band teacher. She loves seeing the joy music brings to kids learning an instrument. Yep, proud of her too.
Our youngest is 14 and she hasn't decided what she wants to do. Probably a teacher if I had to guess.
For the last ten years my second job has been a youth leader/youth pastor. I have seen so many examples of absentee parenting and what it does to the children. I can tell you from experience that being involved in your kids lives and being the parent first and not the best friend always makes a  better home life and outcome for the kids. JMHO.

And yes, I taught all my kids to shoot. The older two love to shoot. The younger one has no use for it. Thats fine, but she knows how to handle a firearm and make it safe.