NRA finally speaks about Sandy Hook and I agree with some of it...

Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, has finally gone on the record in what was billed as a news conference. Although the word "conference" suggests a two-way dialog, an exchange of ideas, Mr. LaPierre said his piece and would not take questions. 

Principle among the NRA's suggestions is that the US Government do whatever it takes to place armed guards inside schools around the country. The NRA's name for this program is School Shield. I'm left to wonder if they'll also be promoting a Shopping Mall Shield, a Movie Theater Shield, a Church Shield, an Abortion Clinic Shield, and a General Workplace Shield, but time will tell, because the larger picture is not just about schools.

Maybe it's just me, but it does seem nothing less than odd that an organization dedicated to the argument that US citizens must arm and defend themselves against their big and scary government is asking that same big and scary government to act bigger and scarier.

That the NRA is nothing more than a lobbying organization is obvious, and I'm not a fan of them, but I do believe in the right to bear arms; I just don't need an advocacy group to enable me, to justify my belief.

I do agree, though, that voluntarily armed teachers in schools could help be a deterent to evil people intent on doing evil things. Criminals don't obey laws; this is why they're criminals. An insane thug intent on insane thuggery will see a sign that reads "Gun Free Zone" and interpret it as "Target-Rich Zone." Anyone who thinks otherwise is being naive.

Moreover, though, I think the forces set against this happening --- i.e., the parents, other teachers, administrators, legislatures, both state and federal, and others --- will try prevent it from even being tried. Mr. LaPierre said that the best way to counteract a bad person with a gun is with a good person with a gun, and I do agree with this... in principle. We just need to be sure the implementation is appropriate, that everyone is on the same page with it, and that the ways it can backfire are considered clearly before trying it.  

It's a radical idea, but banning weapons has proven completely useless in the past, so why do it again.