[The Reaper]

First off, this is an academic argument, since none of us are likely to pass legislation or enforce it. No need for hostility or namecalling, we just have different opinions.

Having said that, I am failing to understand how allowing those who wish to participate after undergoing the requisite training and background checks further endangers our students.

Particularly since the only thing stopping an armed individual from walking into a classroom in my kids' school and killing every child in the room is the ability to pull open the outer door and walk into a classroom with 30 rounds and a functioning firearm. Or machete, or baseball bat, or suicide bomb belt, or a five gallon can of gas and a BIC.

I would put my skills, or those of a competently trained teacher up against almost all potential bad guys. In fact, the program could easily require more training and rounds fired than many LE certification programs.

I have kids in the public school system, understand the risks versus possible benefits, have made my risk assessment, and am willing to take it, provided that the certification, rules, and training is adequate.

So far, I am not hearing logical arguments against it, including those offered by Rosie O'Donnell.

These same concerns were used against CCW legislation and arming pilots, which last time I checked, have not been a source of problems.

The Safer Schools Legislation has, if anything, made this sort of attack easier as lawful firearms owners are discouraged from having their weapons handy, and are in fact, criminalized.

If there is an SRO, and he fails, or is somewhere else at that moment, there is no further line of defense. You simply wait for the assassin to come for you. And no praying out loud either. Is that the option you want for your kids?

TR