There is a simple solution to the question of protecting our children while they are at school. So simple, in fact, that I find it hard to believe that no one has mentioned up to this point. In all fairness, I have not listened to every news show or watched every channel, but the ones that I have watched have not landed on this particular answer.
While our President stands at a microphone and tells us that the solution is to get rid of "certain" types of weapons, he is being guarded by several people carrying those very weapons he is proposing to ban for the rest of us. He knows that it is necessary for them to be there. His very survival depends on men and women being willing and able to deal with an attack on his life. Not just this president but all presidents require a serious level of protection. If not, some nut out there would likely try their hand at becoming famous.
If our presidents recognize the need to be protected, why would they then deny our children the same kind of protection? It wouldn't take 35 heavily armed men to prevent a madman from killing our kids while they are at school. One....yes just ONE...armed security officer could have and likely would have prevent our most recent tragedy. Once the glass was broken a trained officer would have responded quickly and decisively and reduced the carnage to a single death.
I know this to be true and so do you. Those who "deny" this are simply in a state of "denial" and there is little we can do about it. You can argue this very point until you are blue in the face and you will not get through to those who just refuse to accept it as a fact of life.
Those same people seem to have no problem with armed men and women patrolling our streets. They even gather a false sense of security because they are out there. Why then would they deny that having an armed guard "on-site" would be bad while having them patrolling 20 minutes away is okay?
I just don't get it!!