Why is this even a discussion? Why would any sane person oppose it? What exactly is the downside to having armed security in every public school in the country? A public school is a government facility. It is a government facility where we send our kids for 8 hours a day. If virtually every other type of government building has armed security, whey would we leave unsecured precisely the one type of government facility that houses our children?
What's the counterargument? That security at school may infringe on our liberty somehow? It may if the government were forcing private schools to take this measure. But we're talking about property that the government already owns, staffed with people it employs. The State has not only the authority to secure the premises but the duty to do so. The State compels you to send your kids to its facility if you can't afford private school and are unable to homeschool. Attendance is mandatory. Shouldn't a very basic level of security also be mandatory? Shouldn't we expect — demand — that the State protect the kids it has forced us to send to them?
What else? Financial cost? I'm all about being stingy, but this is the one area where stinginess is not acceptable. There are plenty of retired vets who would be more than willing and qualified to take this job. We can protect the kids and provide jobs for veterans at the same time. It's a win/win. Again: where's the downside?
They have armed guards to protect congressmen on Capitol Hill. They have armed guards to protect the President in the White House. They have armed guards to protect documents at your local Social Security office. They have armed guards to protect old dinosaur bones at the Smithsonian. They have armed guards to protect license plates at the DMV. Why would a reasonable person agree that we must go to these lengths to defend politicians and pieces of paper but balk at defending kids?
From what I understand, the school in Florida had one police officer who, for whatever reason, never made it to the scene. It also had a security guard who gave his life shielding students from bullets. How many more may have been killed without his heroic service? How many fewer would have been killed if he had the ability to fire back? How many fewer would have been killed if Sandy Hook had been properly defended?
I do not suggest that armed security will solve the school shooting problem. As I've already stated, school shootings will never be "solved." As long as we are a fallen race, there will be wicked men with wicked intentions. Our job, then, is to respond to, and deal with, that reality. When it comes to the school system, we seem unwilling to deal with the reality. We say, "Well, we shouldn't need armed guards, for God's sake! What kind of country is this?"
Well, we're the kind of country that needs it. We shouldn't be. But we are. We are. WE ARE. You can wish upon a shooting star that it were not this way, but it is. And when the bullets start flying, and the students are huddled under desks, shaking in fear, completely vulnerable, praying the cops show up in time to save their lives, your wishes and happy thoughts and ideas about how things "should be" won't mean a damn thing. A good man with a bullet proof vest and a gun might mean something. He might mean the difference between no dead children or 30 dead children. Or maybe he means the difference between 15 dead children or 20. That is a terrible tragedy, but are those five saved lives — or 20 or 30 — not worth it? Are we really going to leave our kids exposed because the thought of armed guards at school upsets your notions of how things "should be"?
We shouldn't need security at the Pentagon, either. We shouldn't need it at the airport. We shouldn't need it anywhere. You shouldn't even need to lock your doors at night. No bad thing should ever happen to anyone. But they do. Now what are we going to do about it?