After reading the vehement objections to putting an armed guard or police officer in schools ["LI educators condemn NRA security plan," News, Dec. 22], I can't help but wonder exactly how the horrified educators would protect kids from deranged individuals who target schools. Educators' outrage will not do so.
The notion of banning all guns is ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of gun owners do not commit crimes with their firearms. However bad guys will always be able to get a firearm if they want one.
Why are President Barack Obama, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Long Island educators not prepared to deal with this very real possibility by looking into arming all school security? Why do people on the left insist on ignoring reality and clinging to their liberal view of the world?
Anthony Johnson Sr., Brentwood
The article about schools' objections to armed guards brings to light how naive and uneducated many people are relative to law enforcement and the prevention of deadly violence. Highly trained law enforcement professionals protect the citizens of our communities 24 hours a day, every day, and are the first and often only line of defense against armed, deranged criminals.
The idea that "violence begets violence," related to gun violence in our schools, is so out of touch with reality. Perhaps, based on that premise, we should disarm our police officers, or better yet remove the police from our communities and let the armed criminals run rampant.
These crazed killers rely on soft targets, such as children in a school or innocent families in a shopping mall or movie theater. In many of the incidents of spree killing, had an armed police officer been present, the killer would have been stopped and many, if not all, of the victims would be alive today. If armed officers can patrol our streets, protecting our homes and families, then they are certainly capable of protecting our children in their schools.
Victor J. LaGreca, Bellmore
Instead of having an armed police officer at every school, as the NRA has proposed, why not give existing school security officers pistol training, and swear them in as state peace officers?
For this added responsibility, they could receive a new title and a modest increase in their wages, but the community would avoid paying the much-higher police salaries, pensions and benefits to thousands, who would be little more than baby sitters for most of their work time.
Ronald Gendron, Smithtown
Editor's note: The writer is a retired State University of New York police officer.
On May 22, 1970, terrorists attacked a school bus at Avivim, Israel. Since then, all Israeli children are under armed protection by teachers, parents and the military.
It seems to me that it's the Long Island educators who are disconnected from reality, with their irrelevant and nonsensical arguments against effectively protecting children. How many more school shootings and deaths must we endure before they realize that the NRA is essentially correct?
Paul Caparatta, Oceanside
Although he's being savaged in the media, Wayne LaPierre spoke the brutal truth when he said, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
On the same day that LaPierre made his speech in Washington, a Pennsylvania man went on a shooting rampage, killing three innocent people and wounding three state troopers until the carnage was stopped by an armed police officer. In other words, a good guy with a gun showed up to thwart what could have been many more killings.
What is so horribly wrong with having experienced and trained armed guards in schools? Is it any wonder that schools are targeted by the deranged? Or as LaPierre poignantly put it, "the safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk."
Instead of ridiculing LaPierre, I say his words need to be plastered on billboards from coast to coast.
Eugene R. Dunn, Medford