Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Association, said Friday in a statement that the solution to gun violence in schools is to have armed guards in them. "It's the one thing that would keep people safe," he said.
The editorial board at USA Today doesn't agree. But it doesn't disagree, either. From today's editorial:
[A]rmed guards at schools makes some sense. It's certainly a better idea than arming teachers, which could frighten students and create more problems than it would solve. It's doubtful most teachers would want to carry guns, and doubtful that most parents would be comfortable with the idea of armed educators of uncertain training, expertise and temperament.
Far better, if guns are to be in schools, for them to be in the hands of a small group of highly trained and qualified guards, if only as a last line of defense. ... It's conceivable that such a person might have been able to stop Adam Lanza before he murdered 20 first-graders. Or, just as conceivably, an armed guard might have been the first victim of Lanza's vastly superior firepower.
Roughly one-fourth of the nation's public schools already have armed guards, so this isn't a new or untested idea. Schools shouldn't be forced to accept gun-carrying security, but if local boards of education want it, that's their prerogative.