So, basically, we have taught students and teachers to fear guns SOOOOOO much, that a man who is armed cannot walk outside of his home on his own property (or that of a relative on which he has permission to be) without creating such a panic that police resources are tied up for hours, and children are made to fear the boogey man even more. It would have taken probably 5 seconds of observation by a rational person to determine there was no threat. But we are a knee-jerk populace. Rationalization went out the window with the coming of Zero Tolerance! I think the sentence about locking doors and limiting entrance should say because of the percieved threat.

Agree completely Momofgirls. Well said.

So, this guy is on personal property, somebody sees him leaving a residence with a rifle (this is Alabama and hunting season is around the corner) and that leads to a school lock down, with multiple police sources wasted. Can you say overreaction? Look, there is such thing as "better to be safe then sorry", but there is also common sense. Like maybe somebody keeping an eye on the situation and making sure there at least a reasonable suspicion to call 911 besides just seeing a guy with a rifle walking from a residence to his vehicle?

Since there is no requirement to posses common sense before obtaining a firearm, here is a simple guideline. Don't carry a rifle in sight of a school during the times posted on the school zone speed limit signs.

Reaction was proper in our day and age. All ended well. Man was within his rights and school officials acted as they should have. Better safe than sorry.

Rationalist, so you are telling me that this guy must wait until school is out to take a rifle from a residence to his personal vehicle? Really? Also what does this have to do withe having "common" sense to obtain a firearm? The man was not doing anything against the law nor putting anybody any danger and it is not like he was carrying it in front of school. Remember, teachers were outside off the school property where they saw this at a residence near the school. The common sense should been just having somebody keep an eye on the guy to make sure there was a reason to call the cops. I bet if the teacher would have spent an extra minute or too just seeing exactly what the guy was up too, they would have saved everybody a lot of headache. Like I said, better safe than sorry is understandable, but we also have to use some common sense, composure, and logic before hitting the panic button.

I am all for the 2A, as I own several firearms.

I think there was a lack of common sense on both parts.

1: The teachers or someone at the school could have observed the man as others have stated for an extra minute to determine where and how the firearm was being used. One more minute could have shown he was stashing the rifle in a vehicle.

2: The man with the firearm could have used a sheet, or a cover of some sort when walking the rifle outside of his house as well. Not only does this keep thieves from knowing there could be a firearm on the premises it also keeps people from overreacting about something completely legal.

No Louise, I don't think he should have to cover the weapon when outside. What we need to do is not have people wet their pampers every time they see a weapon without a uniform and badge next to it. Would you like it if when leaving your home to go to church, someone said, "You have to cover your Bible. There are schoolchildren over there and they may see you exercising a Constitutionally-guaranteed right. That just won't do!" I want the thieves to know that I am armed. That way, they can make better life choices. It will be a poor choice if they choose to enter my home uninvited with ill intent.

Regrettably, if the man had been a threat, it may have already been too late to save someone's life! Though the man appeared innocent, let's give law enforcement credit for doing everything they could to respond in a timely manner. The police are not the problem. The nuts who kill people are the problem.

Let's all consider this: If there was a second situation where a person walked out of a residence near a school (for kicks and giggles let's say your child's school) and the teachers outside followed the advice of those who say they should have waited to react, what happens if the person actually discharges the firearm at the school do to God knows what reason and hits your child? Would you not start questioning why the teachers did not immediately rush the children to a safe location to spare your child injury or even death?

Second, who's to say the firearm couldn't have accidentally been discharged while in transport? Stranger things have happened. This is the same principle where if you see someone you don't know wondering around your neighbor hood acting strange or suspicious, you don't wait around and see if he tries to rob you; you call the police and if he isn't up to no good then all is well.

NEVER take a firearm lightly. Any situation involving firearms (especially around a school) should be taken very seriously!

I am all for owning a gun for protection, in fact, I own two. However, he should have removed the gun at a more opportune moment.

@Calhoun Library: Rationalist said the gun should not have been moved while the school zone was active (typically from 7:30am - 8:30am and 2:30pm to 3:30pm). Not during the whole school day.

If if's and but's were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas!

If someone walked out of the house and started shooting, I believe the person would have to bring the weapon to ready fire. There's a difference between seeing someone walking with a weapon in hand to a car, usually at waist level or even cradled in the arms, and a person aiming a gun. And if he started shooting, I would hope the teachers would rush the kids to safety at that time. Not scare them every time someone sees something they don't understand. It would have been no different if a person started shooting from cover before anyone even knew he was there.

If the gun discharged accidentally on its own while in transport? Are you for real? This is highly improbable with modern firearms. Why don't we have the cops just pull over every car that drives by the school to make sure all guns that are in transport are unloaded and safe. Do you realize there are guns being driven by every school, every day? Do you think the air around a school zone makes them unstable and more prone to spontaneous discharge?

I guarantee I don't take a firearm lighly. If the person was walking by the school grounds down the sidewalk, I might have a different viewpoint for that scenario. But the person was on private property. Doesn't matter that he may have been within 1000 feet of a school zone. He would have been in his legal rights to sit on the front porch in a rocking chair with a shotgun all day long. He doesn't need to wait for a more opportune moment. Everyone else needs to use some critical thinking skills and stop believing that every gun they see is gonna magically make their owner a serial killer. Out of all the violence today, 85 million gun owners killed nobody.

First off, those ifs and buts are what the teachers were trying to eliminate by reacting the way they did.

Second, how do you know he was handling the gun properly? True, I don't know he that he was handling it improperly; still, why is keeping children as safe as possible an issue? That's what the tax payers dollars pay police for. They were going to get paid regardless of whether they sat somewhere in their cruisers or came to check out someone carrying a gun near a school whil students were being escorted outside, regardless whether it was private property or not.

Third, I don't know one person that can out react a bullet from a gun. Do you not think that if the teachers waited until he started shooting to rush the kids inside that it would be too late for at least one of them to not be hurt or worse? That was the whole point of my last post.

Also, you stretched what I had to say in your next to last paragraph to rediculous proportions and you know it. That's childish. What if he dropped the gun and it discharged. Believe it or not, it can happen.

The point is, trying to eliminate all of the ifs and buts leads to overreaction. And you are correct. I don't know he was handling the gun properly any more than you know he was handling it improperly. And I stretched what you said to show how rediculous it is. You have had five "what if" scenarios in your two above replies. Once again, even a dropped rifle, if it is more modern than about 1960 has internal safeties that prevent the firing pin from striking the round unless the trigger is pulled. Finally, I never claimed that people can react faster than a bullet. I said that for that bullet to be fired, the person would have to bring that weapon into position. And the reaction to that action would be faster than if the person started firing before anyone ever saw him.

The point is that a person was determined guilty until proven innocent. But I guess every right should be stomped on, as long as it's "for the children".

OK, well let's do it this way. When my daughter gets old enough to go to school, if someone spots a man with a gun near the school, I don't care what he's doing with it; the teachers responsible for her had better get her somewhere besides where the gun is.

I wouldn't want anyone to take a chance with my daughter's life or health. Sorry you don't feel the same.

Key point here is "time to react". Once an assualt starts, there is never enough time. What does it take to lift and aim a gun? Perhaps .03 seconds? Think about it. Just like drug tests......I agree that it is an invasion of privacy. Blame those who create the problem. Those who cannot stay un-altered chemically.

I would rather School officials and Police overreact to situations like this 15 times rather than to ignore one that could possibly endanger a child. Right, wrong, agree, diasagree with the situation in this article, I think officials were just thinking of the safety of the children they were responsible for.

The only response to armed criminals is armed good guys. Using laws to disarm implicitly has no impact on the criminal element, only.

In light of the fact that we have nutballs among us who do harm to others with firearms, how bout the schools change their approach and have a voluntary program for teachers and administrators to go armed? Put em through the same training and qualifying as officers, and give them a little pay for doing it. Much cheaper than keeping a cop or two in the halls, and nobody will mess with that school ever again! Response time will be immediate.

Hell, I'd send my kids to that school!

that's right, lets arm the teachers. Like Amy Bishop Anderson.

Or how about a teacher like Michael Minto, who saved the life of a man who was being stabbed outside of the private school where Minto was a teacher. Minto drew his concealed handgun and ordered the attacker to drop the knife. http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/12/kaplan_career_institute_teache.html