I'm puzzled about why the National Rifle Association's President has
been lampooned for suggesting that there should be armed guards in
schools. I'm not saying that I agree with the NRA's entire agenda, but what's wrong with schools having armed security-people?
In
the debate about whether or not teachers should be armed, the "pro"
side appeals to examples in which a person with a gun prevented a mass
shooting. The "con" side then retorts that the person with the
gun who saved the day was usually someone who was trained in the use of
firearms----a police officer, for example. Okay, so is the "con" side
open to people who have been trained in the use of firearms being at
schools to prevent mass shootings? Isn't that what the President of the
NRA was proposing?
An argument that I have heard
against having armed guards at schools is that there have been schools
that had such guards, yet shootings occurred at them. Yeah, and there
have been schools that did not have these guards, too, and shootings occurred at them. Why should we focus on the former, while ignoring the latter?
Please
feel free to comment, but I won't publish any comments that call me or
anyone else stupid. Plus, I probably won't debate, but I'll read the
comments that people leave.