Ticklish Ears

Parenting, education, the Christian walk, and other ticklish subjects
XML Feed

School Security in the Post-9-11 World

submitted by Mike McDaniel for the Carnival of Education #28

Many Americans give lip service to the idea that everything changed on September 11, 2001. For our schools, however, that process of change began on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School in Colorado.

School shootings and terrorist attacks on schools are notorious primarily because they are so rare–students are, statistically, more likely to be struck by lightning or hit by a meteor than to be involved in a Columbine or Beslan-like incident. That is the good news.

The bad news is that intelligence agencies have for some time been collecting information that indicates that terrorists intend to strike soft targets in America. Terrorists know that it will be difficult to again turn an airliner into a flying bomb. Attacking undefended, soft targets like shopping malls, theaters and schools, however, is another matter. In fact, there have been indications that terrorist groups would like to strike schools in rural areas to demonstrate that no one is anywhere safe.

School staff and administrators tend not to be security minded, and in this, they are not alone. Many schools, communities, even law enforcement agencies tend to be locked in–for lack of a better term–the 1980’s model of response. Too few are thinking about adaptation to a more contemporary, effective model.

The 1980’s model was based on the notion that anyone taking hostages would be contained and controlled by the authorities, usually the police. The hostage takers did not wish to die, they were taking hostages for reasons which often included personal or group notoriety, political goals such as forcing the release of jailed comrades, simple greed or in the case of a crime gone wrong, the desperate need to escape. Time was assumed to be on the side of the authorities who would act based on the norms of American criminal law and procedure and would, over time, wear the bad guys down.

The first officers on the scene surrounded the area from a safe distance to keep the suspects from getting out and to keep anyone else from getting in. Higher ranking officers would arrive, assess the situation, establish a command post and call out the SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) team. By this time, the incident could easily be a hour or more old, but remember that time was thought to be on the side of the police. The longer the hostage takers were in contact with the hostages, the more likely they would be to form relationships and the less likely they would be to harm them. While the SWAT team was being mobilized, negotiators would establish telephone contact with a representative of the hostage takers and begin negotiations using a script based on the underlying assumptions of the 1980’s model.

While negotiations were underway and hours were passing, the SWAT team would arrive and plans would be made for their deployment, but they would never be sent into action until the very last moment, until negotiations had utterly failed and there was no other option. Until the hostage taker’s finger was pulling back the trigger of the pistol pointed at the head of a hostage, the police would do nothing but contain, control and negotiate. Sometimes the death of a hostage would be necessary before the authorities were satisfied that deadly force might be necessary. All hostage takers were treated as criminals.

One essential assumption of the 1980’s model was that civilians (victims) should never resist in any way. After all, they weren’t qualified and would only mess things up for the professionals who were charged with protecting the public.

This model worked reasonably well for several decades. Many, if not all, of the assumptions held true because most bad guys really didn’t want to die and most acted as criminals rather than Jihad-inspired terrorists.
Unfortunately, the tactical landscape has irreversibly changed.

Contemporary Lessons and Threats:
There have been a number of notorious school shootings beginning in the 1990’s, but it was Columbine that provided the potential turning point for response models. Unfortunately, schools have focused on sociological rather than tactical/practical responses. Busy trying to raise student self esteem, prevent bullying, and teach everyone to just get along, educators have done little that will be of help when–not if–another school incident occurs. For many schools, effective response to an armed attack consists of locking classroom doors, and reminiscent of early Cold War duck-and-cover drills, overturning and hiding behind desks, relying on three quarter inch particle board desktops for protection from bullets and bombs (for the record, doors and desks provide no real protection from either). Lesson: Hiding, particularly hiding poorly, provides no real protection.

Attacks by crazed adolescents (Domestic Terrorists or DT) and terrorists (Foreign Terrorists or FT) have many elements in common. Both groups have missions in mind. Personal survival is secondary and many plan to die, either through suicide or by means of the police. Both have no interest in negotiation, and when they speak to the police at all, it is merely a means of obtaining greater publicity. Both care about police intervention only because the police might interfere with their mission. The police do not deter their attacks. Both plan their attacks with the goal of causing the maximum damage–usually in loss of innocent lives– in the shortest period of time, which tends to produce the most and most lasting publicity. These tactics do not mean that the 1980’s model, or at least some aspects of it, must be totally abandoned, but it does mean that it is unwise to use that model as the default response. Lesson: There is little practical difference between DT and FT threats.

The Columbine killers tried to kill as many teachers and students (15) as possible in as short a time as possible. Still using the 1980’s model, the police were ineffective. A school liaison officer did trade a few rounds of gunfire with the shooters, but quickly withdrew, doing as he had been taught–contain and control, let the professionals (SWAT) handle it. By the time a SWAT team assembled and entered the building, the shooters had already killed their classmates and themselves, and a wounded teacher who might have been saved bled to death over the course of many hours. The Columbine killers brought a propane tank, hoping to set off an explosion that would kills scores, but were not able to cause a detonation. Lesson: In similar situations, in order to save lives, the attackers must be immediately attacked and neutralized. Time is not on the side of the authorities.

The 9-11 terrorists had no political goals save killing as many Americans as possible. There were no demands, no negotiations, nothing to contain or control. It was the passengers of the airliner the terrorists intended to crash into the White House or Congress, alerted by cell phone to the terrorist’s intentions, who changed the response model independently of the authorities. Crying “let’s roll,? they overwhelmed the terrorists, forcing the plane to crash in a field, far short of the terrorist’s target. Terrorists now know that American airline passengers will not meekly wait for the police to save them. As positive as this development is, it tends to focus terrorists on softer targets.

Few are as soft as schools, as the world learned at Beslan on January 23, 2005 when terrorists blew up a school, killing more than three hundred. This tactic should not have been a surprise, however. The mainstream media (MSM) bear some responsibility for the lack of understanding of these incidents by the public. Israel has suffered terrorist attacks on schools for decades. These attacks have been underreported in the American media, but one particular aspect of these attacks, and the most effective response to them–in Israel and potentially in America–has been all but suppressed by the MSM: the use of firearms to deter and stop school attacks.

Living with terrorism in a way that is, for the moment, foreign to Americans, the Israelis have adopted practical responses to terror. For decades, Israeli teachers have been armed, even with true assault rifles and submachine guns, changing soft targets to hard targets, deterring attacks, and minimizing the loss of life when attacks occur. As a result, school attacks, once common, are now rare. Yet, the MSM has essentially covered up Israeli, and many American, success stories.

In Pearl, Mississippi on October 01, 1997, a crazed adolescent shot nine students, killing two and wounding seven. Who has heard of Assistant Principal Joel Myrick who stopped the rampage, saving untold lives? Virtually no one. Why? He used a gun to overcome the shooter. Myrick ran a quarter of a mile to his car, which was parked off school property to comply with the federal law then in force (but since overturned) prohibiting firearms within 1000 feet of a school. Retrieving his handgun, he ran back to the school and confronted the shooter, disarming him and holding him for police. Media accounts, when they mentioned Myrick, virtually all failed to mention the presence and role of his handgun.

On January 16, 2002 at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia, a crazed student went on a shooting rampage, killing three and wounding three. He was stopped by two fellow students, Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges, who retrieved handguns from their parked cars. At gunpoint, they ended his killing and held him for police. Dr. John Lott, in his book The Bias Against Guns, recounts how he conducted a Lexis/Nexus search of the news stories surrounding this event. Of 208 news stories throughout the nation in the week following the event, only four mentioned that the attack was stopped with the use of firearms. Only two reported that Gross and Bridges actually pointed their guns at the shooter. In his book, Arrogance, former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg wrote of his surprise, upon reading Lott’s research into the incident, that the MSM would leave out such a noteworthy and essential detail. Conducting his own research, he discovered that Lott was correct. Goldberg wrote: “Only a tiny handful of reporters in the entire country were willing to report an essential part of the story: that it wasn’t just the killer who used a gun on campus that day, but two of the rescuers too.?

Questions, Answers and Solutions:
There is one simple update in school policy that can change American schools, as has been the case in Israel, from soft to hard–or at least harder–targets: allow teachers to carry concealed handguns. This policy can be implemented at no cost to schools and mechanisms, both legal and practical, are already in place. Approximately 80% of American states currently allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns subject to record checks, testing and licensing. Several states allow any law abiding citizen who is not otherwise disqualified by mental illness or past criminal status to carry a concealed handgun with no state testing or licensing. These laws have been a uniform success in that every state that has passed a concealed carry law has seen reductions in violent crime, and no increase in shooting incidents. Those licensed to carry concealed weapons have been uncommonly law abiding, and only a tiny percentage have had their licenses revoked, most for technical, nonviolent/dangerous violations of the law. No state that has implemented concealed carry has, in any serious way, contemplated rescinding it.

Schools are gun free zones. Won’t guns make schools more dangerous?
Gun free zones? Yes, but only for those who obey the law, and are, as a consequence, no threat. The fact that schools are gun free zones did not stop the Columbine shooters or any other maniac intent on harming school children, nor will it stop those intent on harm in the future. The laws ensure only that schools are easy targets–victim disarmament zones, if you will–and that shooters will have ample time to kill before any police response can be organized. A gun free zone sign in front of a school provides only a false sense of security and is comforting indeed to killers who may be assured that their victims will be unarmed.

Very few people are comfortable with the idea of prominently posting a sign in front of their home advertising the fact that they are unarmed. Yet some are delighted to see the same sign in front of their children’s schools. Signs and laws confer no protection. They suggest only the possibility of punishment after a violation of the law. Only the affirmative acts of those prepared to defend themselves and others offer real protection.

Teachers carrying guns?
One significant reason that violent crime has declined in right to carry states is that even though only a small percent of the population carries a concealed weapon, the likelihood is high that some honest citizen will be carrying a handgun virtually anywhere at anytime. Knowing this, criminals can never know who will be armed and must assume that everyone might be.

Those already licensed for concealed carry provide a ready pool for schools. Many people assume that the police are all expert shots. Not so. Many police officers are required to qualify with their firearms only once a year. The courses of fire tend to be relatively easy and passing scores generous. Many officers fire their weapons only on those occasions. Shooting skills can be learned by virtually anyone, and a great many citizens exceed the police in shooting skill. This is not to denigrate the police in any way–they do a difficult job well–but putting on a police uniform does not endow the wearer with magical shooting powers beyond the reach of civilians. Most teachers are women. Interestingly, firearms teachers know that women make the best students, usually having no preconceptions and ingrained bad habits.
Publicizing the fact that teachers are allowed to carry, but taking pains to ensure that no one knows who or how many in any given school, will confer upon all teachers, students and schools the benefits of making the school a harder target. No one should be required to carry a firearm against their will. Even if one school in a district has no one on campus carrying concealed, as long as the public doesn’t know that, the school retains the benefit of appearing to be a harder target. If you were a terrorist and knew that state A allowed concealed carry on school property, perhaps even encouraged it, but state B next door did not, in which state would you be more likely to attack?

We hire the police to protect us. Leave it to the professionals.
The police have no duty to protect any individual citizen. On June 27, 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales. In this case, the estranged husband of Gonzales defied a restraining order and kidnapped his three daughters, ages 7-10. The police were called but did nothing. Gonzales’ husband killed the girls and committed “suicide by cop? by firing on a police station. The court affirmed decades of lower court precedent in holding that the police have only a duty to deter and investigate crime for the public at large and not for any individual; the police could not be held liable even though they did nothing to assist Gonzales.

This might seem outrageous, but it is rational and necessary. Most people would be stunned to learn how few officers are patrolling their community at any time of the night or day. It is impossible for the police to guarantee protection to any individual, and if they could be sued for failing to provide that protection, no city could afford a police force. Police agencies are always understaffed. As a consequence, they staff their shifts with the most officers when most are required: evenings in general and Friday and Saturday nights in particular. Most police agencies have the fewest officers working during the day shifts, which is when school is in session.

The police love to catch bad guys in the act, and would love nothing more than to stop school shooters, but the police are primarily reactive rather than proactive. There aren’t many of them, and they’re not well prepared to deal–in terms of weapons, training or procedures–with actual terrorism which employs military methods, weapons and tactics. We are all responsible for our own–and our families’–personal safety.

What about school liaison officers?
Some schools have armed police officers on their campuses during school hours, more have part time officers, but most have none. School liaison officers are expensive. Even if a school has an officer on campus, the odds that the officer will be on campus when an attack occurs, or will be in the part of the building necessary to take immediate and effective action are small. Modern schools are like a maze to those who don’t work in them daily. Those most likely to know who doesn’t belong on a campus and what is happening on a moment by moment basis are those who work there–the teachers.

Remember that time is no longer on the side of the good guys. When crazed adolescent shooters, or terrorists, enter a school, if they are not engaged and stopped immediately, the only factor determining the eventual death toll will be the good will or lack of marksmanship of the shooters or terrorists. Many schools do not have intercom systems, so a teacher seeing a criminal with a gun in a hallway may have no way–other than their own cell phone which may or may not work inside the school–to notify the office, warn other teachers, or to call the police.

Won’t teachers having guns just make a bad situation worse?
Worse than what? Worse than DT’s intent on shooting as many students and teachers as possible? Worse than FT’s feverishly wiring explosive charges? When an armed attack on a school occurs, “worse? has arrived. The only issue thereafter is how much worse things will become. If the good guys have no effective response, worse will become much worse.

Unlike feel good measures, arming teachers is one of the simplest and most effective measures that can have a positive effect if the worst case scenario occurs–ask the Israelis. If it never occurs, the school environment remains unaffected (here ignoring the positive benefits of deterrence).

Teachers who hold concealed carry permits currently live a schizophrenic legal/professional existence. Standing on the sidewalk in front of a school, they are trusted upstanding citizens. Step onto school property and they instantly become potentially crazed killers, liable for lengthy jail sentences and firing. The determining factor? Geography.

Does the value of a teacher’s or student’s life change depending upon where he or she stands relative to a school property boundary? Does a gun free school zone sign confer magical, protective properties on the real estate behind it, forcing even the most unhinged to obey that law even as they contemplate mass murder? Unless this kind of magic exists, the only thing worse than an armed attack is doing nothing before it occurs and when it occurs.

Guns in schools give students the wrong message.
The message implied here is that we are all, by law and common sense, responsible for our personal security. Refusing to take affirmative measures to protect ourselves and our charges is an abrogation of responsibility and teaches only that we aren’t responsible for ourselves–someone else will protect us. We have established the gun free school policy knowing that it will be obeyed only by the law abiding and that it empowers, even encourages those who would harm others. Do we really want to teach students to ignore reality and rely only on feel good measures in this, or any other situation? The best possible message is that schools will be prepared if the unthinkable becomes reality.

Guns are far too dangerous to be around children.
Firearms have been a part of the raising of American children since before the founding of the republic. The number of yearly firearm accidents has been, for decades, declining dramatically. Despite the fact that there are, per capita, substantially more firearms in American homes than ever before, accidents are at their lowest level since 1903.

Some have suggested that 11 or more children per day die by gunshot wounds, but this is deceptive. To reach this figure, one must count people as old as 20 and more as “children? and include, for example, 19 year old drug dealers killed in turf shootouts, or 20 year old robbers shot by the police.

In reality, for actual children (14 years and under), the daily rate is 2.6. For children ten and under, it is 0.4. For example, in 1995, 200 children (14 and under) died of gunshot wounds from all possible causes. But in that same year, 2,900 died in automobile accidents, 950 drowned, and 1000 died of burns. Even bicycle accidents killed more than gunshot wounds. While the death of any child for any reason is tragic, we don’t keep children out of cars and away from water and bikes. It may be worthwhile to keep in mind that more kids die playing high school football than die in school shooting incidents each year. Again, that’s the good news, but it doesn’t lessen the potential threat, and the damage that will be done if an attack does occur. Remember, the world has changed. The argument here is, as always, for rational, effective responses to realistic potential threats.

The Liability for Guns in Schools is Just too Great:
That we live in a ridiculously litigious society is a sad fact of life. Parents sue schools if their daughters aren’t picked to be cheerleaders or if their sons don’t make the first string football squad. One may use the threat of potential litigation to avoid implementing any program or idea. Generally speaking, the potential liability for the misuse of a firearm is the same on and off school property. Absent a specific state statute, school grounds do not impose any greater legal burden on those carrying a firearm than are found on a public sidewalk, and the requirements for the use of deadly force remain the same whether one is on a playground or the street adjoining it. laying high school football has been, to date, more dangerous than school shootings (far more in terms of serious injuries not leading to death), yet we do not abolish football over liability concerns. Anyone carrying a firearm must always take affirmative steps to ensure that it is not misused by themselves or others. Such concerns are an eloquent argument not for disarming victims, but for good training.

Any potential liability issues must be addressed by the state legislatures. As many states require schools to be “gun free zones,? it would be necessary–as a first step–for their legislatures to repeal such statutes and authorize the carrying of concealed weapons on school grounds. As education and tort law does differ in the various states, liability issues–to whatever degree it might be necessary to deal with them in a given state–should be dealt with in the same way.

A sort of “Good Samaritan? law could be written absolving teachers and other staff members of liability so long as they were properly trained, licensed, and acting reasonably in response to a deadly threat. Such a law should not, of course, shield anyone from reckless, malicious or foolish behavior or outright negligence. If the strongest case one can muster against armed teachers is that they are too unstable to bear such responsibility, what are they doing in the classroom when thousands of citizens with less education and potentially less maturity carry concealed weapons without incident each day–off school property, of course.

It may be worthwhile to consider the potential liability (to say nothing of the horrendously negative public relations fallout) inherent in doing nothing in the face of known terrorist threats should the worst case scenario come to pass. The MSM has also done a fine job of hiding the fact that from one to 2.5 million Americans successfully defend themselves with firearms each year, most without firing a shot. If a school’s only response amounts to “duck and cover,? it might be hard to trumpet a gun free school zone policy as effective.

Regardless of how one feels about the foreign policy of a given administration, America has been involved in a war with terrorists since at least the Carter administration. Nearly 800 Americans have been killed by terrorists around the world prior to 9-11. It was only 9-11 that made us realize that it might be wise to act as though we were fighting a war against those who had long since publicly declared war on us. We also know that our FT enemy wants desperately to carry out attacks in America and in American schools. Recently gathered intelligence suggests this and they have elsewhere used this tactic for decades. It is nothing new to them, but it is new to us. It is equally sobering to realize that our own domestic brand of terrorist, the DT, always has been present and is present today.

The arming of school staff is not a panacea. It cannot, for the prevention of domestic adolescent terrorism, replace intervention and identification programs. It is, rather, a very low or no cost protective measure for worst case scenarios that has the very salutory benefit of providing credible deterrence. Arming staff is like providing fire extinguishers. A teacher might complete an entire career without needing a fire extinguisher, but when they do need one, they need it immediately, badly, and nothing else will do. So it is with firearms.

Image that you are the parent of a student. An armed DT or FT is coming down the hallway where your child sits, unaware, in a classroom. Would you want a teacher, trained and prepared, to be armed and able to protect your son or daughter, or would you be satisfied with the protection offered by a small metal sign, a locked door, and a piece of 3/4? thick particle board? If you would, honestly, choose the latter, then by all means, live your convictions and post a conspicuous “WE ARE COMPLETELY UNARMED? sign on your front lawn. If you wouldn’t do that, perhaps it’s time to join the ranks of those who recognize that times have, indeed, changed, and that a kind of danger unique in American history now faces us.

3 Responses to “School Security in the Post-9-11 World”

  1. Ticklish Ears » Blog Archive » The Carnival of Education: Week 28 Says:

    […] Mike McDaniel is a high school teacher who, in his former life, was a police officer. He has submitted a provocative article on school security (I’ve backdated it on my site). Punch line: he proposes that “gun-free school zones” are no longer keeping our schools safe from would-be attackers, and maybe those attackers need some incentive to stay away. On the other hand, while it may be that English teachers aren’t packin’ heat, their colleagues over in the Chemistry department are loaded for bear. James at Ruminating Dude fills us in on high school Chem teachers and things that go boom. […]

  2. Ms Cornelius Says:

    I am an experienced female teacher, who has some experience with firearms. I could be certified to carry a weapon if I chose to– I can load, unload, clean and accurately fire a weapon.

    Do I choose to own a weapon? No.

    I also currently study two different martial arts– one which includes striking, and one which includes grappling.

    Do I use these skills when I monitor troublesome areas? The awareness of one’s surroundings and the projection of a calm, confident mien, yes. But strike or choke a student? No. And the odds are incredibly great that I will never encounter a situation like those at Columbine in which striking or harming a student would be necessary and even, in my opinion, required. And yet you suggest that I carry a gun. We should always seek to use the least amount of force, and once you introduce lethal weapons, you are tacitly upping the ante of teacher response in lesser situations.

    When I break up a fight among students at my school, (it’s very rare, but I can do it and have done it over my career) I use the skills and reflexes and open yet commanding demeanor I have honed to assess the situation, and use the least amount of force possible. My main job in a violent situation is neither to watch idly while one kid busts open another kid’s head, nor to bust open a kid’s head myself. (And of course many other teachers and the NEA disagree and tell me not to intervene– fine for you, but I have to live with myself.)

    One should use a gun when one wants to use the greatest amount of force to resolve a situation, not the least amount. Having teachers carry weapons would be a mistake, for a number of reasons.

    1. Most people with access to weapons, being reasonable, law-abiding citizens, hesitate to pull the trigger, but they don’t hesitate to pull the gun out, hoping that the perpetrator will be dissuaded by the mere sight of a weapon. Instead, what happens all too often is that the weapon then gets taken away from them after a violent game of “chicken.” So now the perp has TWO weapons. And if he’s really determined, there’s already a dead or wounded “hero” on the ground– because the perp is NOT a reasonable, law-abiding citizen with deep, unacknowledged doubts about his own ability to use violence. We cannot assume that most teachers really have the will to kill, if necessary. That’s why we’re teachers, not cops.

    2. Oh, but killing isn’t necessary, you say. Just shoot to disable or wound. But most people don’t have the training to do this, and they know it. Even the police have a less-than-perfect record at this. Which is why they hesitate to pull the trigger in the first place, as mentioned previously– reasonable people know and worry about the permanent consequences of sending that projectile down that barrel.

    As my gun-loving Uncle “Roy” taught me, “Honey, if you pull out your weapon against some threat, you need to know you’re going to use it, and use it until it’s empty.”

    And even if teachers were willing to do so, we don’t have hours a week to spend training ourselves to become this skilled– we’re already drowning in a plethora of tasks just to try to educate our students.

    There has to come a point when society realizes that schools cannot be all things to all people– we can’t be community centers and cafeterias and social services providers and barbershops and planned parenthood clinics and daycare facilities and at the same time pretend to be focused on education. The more we dilute our attention away from the main mission, no matter how noble the cause, the more we make sure we won’t be good at ANYTHING, especially the all-too-difficult attempt to encourage the attainment of skills and knowledge by our young people. And packing heat is in no way related to my main purpose; indeed, I would say it would greatly detract from my main goal.

  3. Mike McDaniel Says:

    Dear Experienced Female Teacher:

    I’m afraid you’ve read into my article that which was not there. Shoot to wound or disable? Only cops would ever shoot to kill? No time for training? Dilution of attention? Breaking up fights?

    I’ll be brief, and hopefully more clear. If a given teacher practiced shooting 2-4 times a year, they would practice more than many police officers. Surely one has 2-4 hours a year to devote to a worthwhile skill, even as busy as we all are.

    The police have no special magic. In fact, more citizens than police officers defend their lives with firearms each year–far more. The “will to kill” may be more properly expressed as the will to defend oneself or others about whom one cares. Expressed in this way–and this is crux of the matter–who would not do what they could? Yes, some may be ill-suited, but they would not have to carry, and the deterrant effect applies if only a single teacher carries or if none do, so long as neither situation is public knowledge. Courage and the ability to handle stress are not solely the province of the police.

    Uncle “Roy” was on the right path but slightly off target. One shoots only because of the immediate need to protect the lives of others or their own life. They fire not to kill, disable or wound, but to stop the threat. In that pursuit, one may indeed fire a single round, or as many rounds as necessary to stop the imminent threat that allowed–indeed compelled–them to fire in the first place. With this in mind, one never shoots to wound or disable as such a practice would be likely to leave the attacker able to continue his attack. With this in mind, one would never expose a handgun to interrupt a fight, unless the imminent threat of death (or very serious injury) was present, in which case it would be legally justified. Absent those conditions, it would be foolish and illegal.

    To extend my previous analogy, we have fire extinguishers readily available, but they do not distract us from educating students, any more than a concealed handgun would. Carrying a tool that may well never be used (one can only hope and pray) can scarcely be thought to distract one from any other endeavor. Remember, this suggestion is for the worst case scenario when the bad guys are coming down the hallway armed and ready to kill, nothing more, and certainly nothing less.

Ticklish Ears is powered by WordPress and the Fluid Web Theme