We'll need to fight military-style fire with military fire. It won't be enough to stick one or even three uniformed police officers at the front doors of our schools with their conventional, .40 caliber pistols and call that sufficient protection. Just ask yourself: In a duel between you and this anonymous "bad guy," only one of you can have the 100-round assault rifle, the other gets the 13-round handgun; which weapon would you choose?
We need James Holmes, SWAT Team-style gear, complete with helmets, neck protectors, bullet-proof vests, helmets, shields and a little tear gas for good measure.
We need throat and groin protectors, ballistic leggings and gas masks. We have to eliminate any weak spots -- any at all that can be exploited in an indiscriminate spray of bullets, and essentially be prepared to turn an elementary school lobby into a war zone rivaling Baghdad faster than you can say "Bushmaster."
My heart breaks for the possible realization of LaPierre's proposals, that the schoolhouse might not be safe as a direct result of its "Firearm-Free Zone" status, and that our only solution to keep our children safe is to strengthen the gun presence in our society, as I'm sure LaPierre would agree, it's not just our schools that are targets for such destruction.
As we saw in Aurora, Colo., there's danger in our movie theaters, the threat of violence looming by the roads we drive along every day, should an assailant decide to use the cars passing by for target practice. Our parking lots are unsafe, our shopping malls, college campuses, temples, churches, grocery stores, pet shops, soup kitchens.
As LaPierre has made us hauntingly aware, anywhere that there is not a gun presence, we are vulnerable, and yet the NRA, which has a real voice in this debate, can only point blame elsewhere -- anywhere but itself.
It refuses to acknowledge the hard truth of the matter, which is that there are simply too many bad guys out there with much too easy access to these high-caliber assault rifles.
Huffington Post