Well, DFS, I can find fault with it. As background, most all of our schools are designated "gun free zones." Why? The mere PRESENCE of guns is a threat, because a gun is meant to be used. A gun has no mind of its own (although there may be the occasional misfire), so a gun is dependent upon the mental condition and ability of its holder. If we have thousands of paid or volunteer "guards" on "duty" at schools, there is NO DOUBT that their guns will be discharged. Some of these "guards" will be mentally unstable, despite the "psychological screenings," especially the "volunteers." There is basically something wrong with a person who is willing to volunteer half of his time around a school, "guarding" school children.<quoted text>You must have creamed your jeans when you read this one Gun Gobbler. I am not fond of the idea, but I suppose with the dangers kids face today, at school or at home, this may not be that much more of a risk to their safety. It just seems so draconian and reactionary and pointless. It seems like this kind of thing is taking us backwards, rather than forwards, but I have to be honest in that I can't wholey find fault with it. At least the teachers had some sort of training.
I will state my own opinion about these "guards": MORE school children (and teachers) will be shot by these guards than school children will be shot WITHOUT THE GUARDS.
Although such events are tragic, such school shootings are given a great amount of attention in the media and by the public. In actuality, relatively few school children are shot at schools during the school year. I once calculated the numbers, and it was perhaps 30 school children a year, throughout the United States. Bluntly, that is a small number. More bluntly, the mere presence of guards at schools will do little to minimize the threat, since many of the shooters are insane and will not be deterred significantly by "guards" sitting in the school cafeteria drinking coffee. These shooters are similar to guerillas: they can pick the time and place of their killings. They will consider the presence or absence of guards. If guards are present, they will know their routine and avoid them -- or merely go to another less-guarded school. In some cases, their FIRST target will be the "guard" himself.
In my opinion, the whole idea of "guards" at schools is "pie in the sky" fantasy in which many of the public THINK that "guards" will help the situation. Also, in my opinion, such "guards" will NOT help the situation, and in fact the presence of such "guards" will assure even more killings because of accidental shootings.
(Why did the NRA suggest three or four guards at all schools? Easy: it is good for NRA business.)