A wise tale and a wise editorial.

While I may not agree and I may think the remarks misplaced I respect ole TSW's passion for the unborn.  Yet where does the passion go when they are born.  Where is the passion to protect them from a society overrun with guns?  Where is the passion to feed them?  To educate them? To nuture their lives and protect them when they grow old?  Like so many on that side of the argument who seem to see the form of the person while yet unborn, the person born is suddenly left adrift and not so valuable.

Some would argue for an armed camp within each school.  They would make this argument because they are afraid of the real problems that exist.  The are unwilling to pay the price of the changes that are needed.  Security costs freedoms, it always has and it always will.  We can stand guard against the excessive loss of freedom, but limiting magazines sizes or certain types of weapons does not prevent me from exercising my 2nd Amen. rights anymore than not yelling fire in a theatre limits my freedom of speech. 

There is ideology, there is belief, but there also is a thing called compassion.  An emotion that one can apply to reasonable thought to reach a reasonable solution.  While I may understand TSW's postiion I can also understand the woman who needs a proceedure.  While I may understand the passion of some gun owners I also understand the folks at Newtown.  There is and has always been a middle ground on these things, but one has to look somewhere beyond their own personal beliefs in order to find it. 

An interesting analogy. Those who would outlaw armed self defense are like people who would outlaw walking on snow? I'd say that the failed notion of "gun-free zones" is stupid, but it isn't that stupid. Of course, real gun-free zones, backed up by metal detectors and/or armed police, would protect the people inside, but a sign saying "gun-free zone" -- as found in most schools -- only keeps out guns in the hands of law-abiding people. Massachusetts has very few problems with its license-to-carry holders; school employees won't magically become killers if they can carry in school as they can almost everywhere else in public.

I believe the Obama children have multiple armed guards at their school. And I don't mean secret service...I mean before they attended there were armed guards at their school where the DC elite could safely send their children. I ask...is this folly?

Great editorial. The answer to too many guns is not more guns, but fewer. The NRA and their ilk would have us embrace their vision of a post-apocalyptic armed camp society. We do not need to go that route, we are better than that.

I'm on the fence on the 'armed guards in schools'  topic.  The right will tell you that Rahm Emanual, David Gregory, President Obama (actually many in Washington) are among the people who's children attend schools with armed guards.   If them, why not us?  If it can be done safely for them, why not us?

This argument that "liberals" send their kids to school with armed guards is about as stupid as it gets.  "Conservatives" send their kids to school with armed guards as do most rich people.  Rich people send their children to these types of schools not to protect them from shooters but because the kids are targets for other reasons.  It isn't a question of liberal or conservative.  The question is do we want our kids sent to armed camps posing as schools.  If the American public wants this type of school system then they will have to pay for it.  They don't like paying for what they have now and we are to expect they will be willing to fork out more money to create these armed camps. 

"Conservative" or "liberal" these folks crack me up.  Whine about taxes and then say you need more services.  Hey you will have to pay for it.  If a society has to arm all of its citizens, guard all of its public meeting places it has a serious "gun" or "mental" problem and I mean societal "mental" problem.

I cannot imagine how the wise and often mis-understood phiosopher/educator, John Dewey would respond to the question of placing armed guards in our schools.  The logic is indeed. as Ms. Wickerham indicates nonsensial.  The Dewey passage that comes most rimmediately to mind is "Education is not a preparation for life but is life itself"  (reference available upon request).  

Emily D. Cahan,Ph.D

Professor of Psychology

Wheelock College

Boston, Ma,  02476

"Kitch" I find it hard to believe that you could logically fall into this nonsensical "hypocrisy" argument when it comes to politics.  The hypocrisy within either ideology is so deep that knee boots wouldn't protect you from the excrement.  I can find no logical argument can be had with either nonsensical "conservatives" or theoretical "liberals".  If one is willing to agree to the idea that "conservatives" aren't hypocritical because of their "individualsim" then one would have to hold that "conseratives" weren't hypocritical when they take their govt. benefits and wish to deny others theirs.  I just find it impossible to agree with a "hypocrit" calling others a "hypocrit". The word is just to easily used and like any overused word ends up meaningless.

Surely this is just literary exercise, not a serious argumentative article. Using this logic we can prove almost anything: why lock front doors(we rely on the lock to secure access, but if it's broken,all is lost), why have brakes on cars?(we drive at a higher rate of speed relying on brakes, but if they fail - it's curtains)., etc...

While it's a sad statement about the environment we live in, and proposal at ahnd is not without fault, this style of argumantation doesn't help resolve the issue.

The tale of the Liberal Progressive philosophy in a few chosen words. 

Arming everyone on a plane used to be a comedian's story for a laugh, now it's the NRA's plan. Witness the gun buy-back in LA. 2000 firearms returned. These are ony the guns people figure they can do without. The country is most definitely awash in guns, making it very easy for them to wind up in the wrong hands. Putting more guns out there and encouraging gun battles in schools full of children makews sense to some misguided individuals, but is really foolish. Armed guards could not save Kennedy, Reagan, Columbine victims. We have to limit guns. 

"Kitch"  Interesting your remark regarding liberals, "The fact that they claim "their own particular ideas are for the basic good", is not challenged. However, they are wrong."  I'm not so sure they are always wrong anymore than "conservatives" are always wrong.  There can be a confluence of "liberal" and "conservative" views that makes sense whereas either standing alone can border on the ridiculous. 

However, when it comes to this gun debate I just don't think it is a "liberal" -"conservative" debate.  It is in fact or should be simply a logical discussion as to how to control firearms while at the same time protecting 2nd amendment rights.  That to me should be fairly easy to rational discuss, of course trying to discuss it with ideologues like most important issues is literally impossible.

I agree the 'arm the teachers' and 'put armed guards in suburban schools' campaigns are silly and nonsensicle, but this article is silly and unhelpful.

Sorry but I fail to see the analogy. We protect those things that need to be protected. Clearly, leaving schools unprotected has allowed them to be preyed upon. Could a guard be shot? Yes, just like any other security we have that could be taken out with force. Would having an armed guard cause these cowards to stay away from schools? I believe it would. 

The big mistake that the NRA made was saying that having armed guards is the only way we can protect our children while at school. Not including assaut weapons and large magazines in the discussion makes them look callous and, quite frankly, foolish, in their interpretation of the second amendment. There's no reason for these weapons to exist, even gun enthusiasts have agreed with that.

While it's sad we have to admit to ourselves that we might have to have armed guards at our schools to protect innocent children from lunatics, we can't just hope that we can solve all the problems that are involved in these tragic events - weapons, mental health issues, cultural violence, etc. From shootings to what went on in the Catholic church to the constant stories we hear of pedophiles roaming free, most recently John Burbine, we don't do nearly enough to keep children safe.

A nice piece to remind all how very foolish the NRA was to come forth with their "nothing stops a bad man man with a gun like a good man with a gun" policy.  It is intellectually amazing that the NRA claims to be upholding, and guided by the 2nd Amendment, which reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the defence of a free country, the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed" yet they are all about creating armed individuals and private militia who are NOT "well regulated".  But as your opinion subtling suggests, they are actually fools, and all about promoting their agenda (or is it really an addiction) of "more guns in more hands and less federal regulation."  They proposed solution certainly does not position them well in the national debate about addressing serious gun violence.  Thank you for insights.

This fool loved your story but back to the real world. Proper security measures may solve the problem. First of all, security cameras around the school building may bevery  helpful. The guard could wear a bullet proof vest and helmet. If that fails, then the teachers and principals, as is being done now in some communities, can be trained and licenced to pack heat. So if the shooter kills the well protected guard (must be a great shot), then he'll have the next hurdle  of dealing with a battalion of armed staff. Moving on, the shooter would first have to jump high over the next hurdle of locked down first-floor windows with alarm systems, that is, if the schools can afford this protective system.  I would hope so. At ouside playtime, the area should be brick-walled off. Bizzarre, I know, that we have to take protective measure like this  but the Newton shooter was also bizarre. 

Nice tale, and it was exactly that, a tale.  A town completely populated by fools.  Interesting concept.  JW conveniently assigns the role of fools to the NRA and those who would suggest that armed guards might be in order for schools.  Possibly the role of fool should be assigned to those who would like to leave their children unprotected in a fantasy world of paper laws, gun free school zones, assault weapon bans and the like?

I have read the previous comments.  One of the points made was that many of our leaders, both liberal and conservative have their children attend schools with armed guards.  Whatever else we may think about them, they are not fools.  Keep in mind they are extremely clever political animals that will adjust accordingly to maintain whatever power they possess, even if what they do appears foolish to some of us.  Even our media folks, who are typically well educated are not fools, their children generally attend well guarded schools.

It seems we trust our safety to armed police officers, yet we are not willing to have trained armed officers protect children at school?  I would agree that it is a bad idea to have untrained teachers toting guns into classrooms.

For those of you who do not want guns in schools, they why are the police called when one of these incidents occurs?  You immediately have LOTS of men with LOTS of guns running into a school full of kids, with guns.  We all know they answer, because they are TRAINED to handle the situation.  What many of you do not know is that the training has changed since the Columbine shooting.  It used to be that police would only shoot in those situations when they had a clear target and field of fire.  Now they are trained to lay down supressing fire, with the chance it may strike innocents.  The idea being that some "collateral damage" is going to be less than what a shooter will do.

Once again, even if laws were passed, there are over 300 million guns out there.  Do you really think your kids will be protected by legislation alone?  It would take many years for that legislation to have a measurable effect.  Those who ballyhoo about foreign countries having passed laws always leave out that those countries are far less populated, did not have a gun culture anything close to ours, did not have a 2A protecting their rights, and are culturally different regarding violence.

It would also benefit posters here to research FBI statistics on Murder.  You will quickly discover that children under 12 are more than 2.5X more likely to be beaten to death with hands/fists/feet than shot.  That is not to say it is acceptable to have 20 children murdered at school, it isn't.  However, if one is going to start curtailing freedoms, we have known for a long time that most children die at the hands of their parents.  Maybe we should start supervising them more closely and have a real impact on children's death rates?

So truly, who is the fool?  The person who relies on a bunch of politicians to pass legislation that will not protect a child now, or the one who says, "Yes, put an armed guard on the school, while we go to work on the problem."   Why are the anti gun folks framing this argument in a manner that will continue to risk the lives of children?  Just to advance their own agenda?  It would seem so.

Joan, go back and read Curious George. You missed out.

Joan - Are you sure you're talking about the people from Chelm?  Sounds more like Massachusetts state government to me.  

Your story was soooo compelling I had to read it again!

I came to a different conclusion than you, however.

How about:  The writer indicated that ordinary people are usually led by fools, who arrive at foolish solutions to a problem, trying to make themselves look good?  The town government may have been a reference to our federal government. 

All the clever responses. But it's not their children who are dead and buried. 

"Oh, Henderson, man cannot keep still under the blows.... A hit B? B hit C?--we have not enough alphabet to cover the condition. A brave man will try to make the evil stop with him. He shall keep the blow. No man shall get it from him, and that is a sublime ambition.”

― Saul Bellow, "Henderson the Rain King"