Air Marshals, Armed Teachers, and Gun-Free Zones: Are You Consistent?

A school, contrary to an airplane, obviously has no comparable screening process for entrance; perpetrators contend only with possibly locked doors and closed windows. And the locked doors are only an issue if the perpetrator is not a familiar face nor already bearing a visible weapon that would prevent him from being buzzed in. Indeed, the killer is almost always familiar to the occupants of the building.The Newtown killer did need to contend with a locked door, but was quickly able to break the glass and to open the door from the inside.

Once in, the only remaining barriers to his massacre were the heroism of the adults present and his own mental capacity.

So -- two situations comparable in attractiveness to a murderer and in vulnerability of the potential victims present:

-- A large segment of society has demanded that one of these situations be secured with the absolute best available security apparatus, and further feels additionally safer with an armed undercover marshal present.

-- This same segment of society does not demand the other situation be similarly screened and secured, and further feels more vulnerable by the thought of an armed undercover marshal present.

Are you one of these people? If so, have you taken your child on a plane since George W. Bush expanded the air marshal program, or taken them anywhere else with an armed guard, such as a museum or sporting event?

Why did you feel your child was safe there?

Is your rejection of school marshals logical, or emotional?

Also read: 

Gun Crazy II