Truthfully, I'm not wild about the message that posting armed guards outside of our schools sends to children, but it is an added layer of security so I wouldn't be terribly upset if this happened. That being said, a couple of thoughts:
1) Who's going to pay for these guards? The NRA? Or should we use taxpayer money? Anathema for the conservatives that primarily make up the NRA.
2) Why does the gun lobby think armed security and sensible gun-control laws are mutually exclusive?
And the fight over sensible gun control is the thing that drives me batty about this whole thing (I live in a rural, conservative area, so when I see acquaintances on Facebook lashing out at gun-control advocates for not using "facts and logic" when by most every statistical measure pro-gun arguments fall flat, I find myself thinking of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG7LjVCj50Y ). In light of this tragedy, it would seem that if one side were going to be bullish and the other frantically searching for some middle ground, it would be the gun-control advocates with the advantage over the gun lobby. Virtually every argument that the NRA could muster (after their cowardly silence, of course) was exposed:
*More guns means less crime - Should we arm our elementary school children?
*Then we should arm teachers - The shooter wore extensive body armor; who pays for the teacher's training, assuming that we aren't just handing them guns to figure out for themselves; what happens when there's a substitute teacher
*Armed guards would prevent this from happening - Well, there was an armed officer at Columbine; As the NRA held its press conference, four were killed and three police officers (presumably armed) were injured by a shooter in Pennsylvania.
*These psychos will find another way to kill - A man attacked school children in China with a knife during the same week as the Sandy Hook shooting...ZERO deaths.
What's more, no liberal I know is arguing for a ban on all guns, which is what you'd be led to believe if you followed gun enthusiasts' arguments, all centered on their flawed understanding of the 2nd amendment. It's ironic that conservative judges stymie progress all the time with constrictionist, no-interpretation-allowed reading of the constitution, yet they utilize the broad phrasing of the "right to bear arms" to rationalize ownership for any weapon that their over-compensating minds can conceive. I recently had a run-in with a former classmate, who shook off my contention that the framers couldn't even fathom automatic weaponry when the constitution was written, which undermines the 2nd amendment even if you believe it's meant to give free rein to gun enthusiasts. His response: "David, they could literally see the future, I'm sure they had an idea." He feebly responded to my questions about why they didn't have the foresight to abolish slavery or grant women the right to vote, said my request to find constitutional provisions about the Internet was "unfair," but totally ignored my final question, which asked that since their could be no limits to the weaponry I desire, should I be allowed to assemble and own my own nuclear warhead should I ever have the resources to do so?
I also had another Facebook friend who claimed she was just "testing me," when I pointed out that her conservative spam about the little-known Pearl River shootings, which claimed that the media didn't report it because an asst. principal with a gun stopped the shooter, was highly misleading. The man stopped the shooter from leaving the grounds, but the shooting had already taken place, with two deaths and five injuries.
I've had another friend demand that all of his "true friends" boycott businesses, such as Dick's Sporting Goods, which have suspended the sales of weapons like the rifle used in the Sandy Hook shooting.
I've had yet another friend attempt to debunk my various sources and statistics by a single Web site, which exclusively cites John Lott Jr.'s works. He's ignored my repeated attempts to educate him on Lott, whose greatest hits include being funded by the educational arm of a pro-gun lobbyist group, repeatedly citing a survey he conducted proving that more guns equals less crime even though he has no written record of such a survey and claims he had it all on a hard drive that was destroyed (two men have come forward to substantiate his claims...both gun lobby members), and getting busted for impersonating a student online to write glowing reviews of his studies, books, and classes.
I apologize for the length of this post. But I began with a simple response and continued to add thought after thought. I just wanted to cram as many of my thoughts and critiques in as I could, while also demonstrating the irrationality of gun enthusiasts by highlighting the ignorance of many of my rural area Facebook friends.
I guess, the abridged version of my message is this: Common sense and even the slightest shred of decency demands tighter restrictions on gun sales and a ban on assault weapons. In my view, arguing against this in the face of overwhelming evidence to support the need for it is either ignorant, stupid, evil, or a combination of the three.