So a friend on facebook said, "there should be no gun free zones." My knee jerk reaction to that was unfair, as I interpreted that statement to mean, “let any idiot with a gun go wherever the hell he pleases; concerts, schools, whatever. In fact, I'm gonna go out front and squeeze off a few rounds right now because the Lions lost again, fuck!” I didn't think he meant that we should pay for on-site armed protection for our children. That actually makes sense. It's not IDEAL, but as long as our gun laws are so relaxed, it’s our responsibility to guard our children with that fact in mind. BUT, I think the laws are WAY too relaxed. I don't think the NRA has any valid points against the position that it shouldn't be so easy for minors, anyone with diminished mental capacity or emotional instability to get a gun. I certainly don't want to eliminate the right own a gun, but I do think we are regarding that right irresponsibly. Until we start reasonably restricting and/or monitoring gun ownership I think we have the moral responsibility to protect our children against these threats that are growing in frequency. Anyone disagree? I'd love to hear why. And please don't give me examples of when the armed guard was ineffective. That's actually irrelevant. The only thing relevant would be if the armed guard actually caused greater harm. Point being that an armed guard at very least MIGHT help.