Very well said! If there are objections in the community to police in the schools, then there is an abundance of resources in most places in the US that could be brought to bear against this problem - some of the "old guys" might even volunteer to do it free of charge to the community. I am one such old guy, and if my help in this regard would be accepted I would have no problem serving in this capacity. Some of us "old guys" have had security clearances and military experience and as such would be easily checked out and deployed at minimal cost, and who wouldn't take this challenge seriously except those on the left who never personally commit to any sort of sacrifice, whether it be money, time, effort or blood?

This is the dumbest proposal yet. You can stick your head in the sand, but the problem isn't the guns or the ammunition, it's the mental defectives that do the shooting! The deadliest weapon on Earth is the human mind.

SO you are in favor of the current state of protection for children. Great. You protect money with more security than you do human life. (There's armed guards at every bank). What a ridiculous extrapolation you have made.

Doc, technically speaking, the NRA's call for police at the schools is better than arming a school employee; just because a person is issued a permit and a weapon does not mean they will be able to keep a cool head and react to the situation with deliberation. Although as a stop gap there should be some procedure as you suggest, these people have to be able to be mentally tough enough to take the assailant on without hesitation, and I think that secretaries, custodians and teachers are not always the people you want to depend on in a gun battle. It takes a special kind of determination to stop a violent criminal, and I just think the people you arm should be dedicated to that task and have the demonstrated ability to act appropriately.

Sort of like the solution swiss banks use to stop robbers - the entry foyer can be locked with the robbers inside, and it is blast proof.

Wayne LaPierre has it right - we protect money better than we do young school children - at least the money has an armed guard watching over it, our kids only have words to protect them. In a battle of words versus bullets, the words lose. Taking out these shooters is the only way to stop them.

Most of those cases were the result of people who had psychological problems of one sort or another. The weapon is in the mind of the perpetrator. It is simply the mechanism by which the evil do their deeds, and most of the guns in this country are owned by law abiding people who don't shoot other people. Your arguments are wrong headed. We can lock up the crazies and keep a watchful eye on them, but we are not even trying to do that, and haven't for the past 30 years. Gun laws only affect the people who obey laws, clearly the people who commit these kinds of crimes do not fit that profile.

This does not in any way come close to the subject of this article. I just thought you should know that since you apparently do not have the intellect to post on topic that I should make one last attempt at steering you toward relevance.

There are those who will not believe that North Korea is trouble until they manage to nuke someone. There are also those who will not believe that North Korea will sell any weapon they possess to anyone else - both are ignorant of fact and history.

Ever notice how the left always has some specious argument to cover their hindquarters when they cross the line - it's like little kids who want to divert attention from themselves when they break the lamp in the living room - "but brother pushed me". Well, the thugs not only took the tent down but they cut it up with box cutters and other knives, and they destroyed a food vendor's equipment and supplies as well because he supported the right to work people inside that tent. This business is damned ugly. When will people be fed up enough to demand it stop?