To the Editor:
Your article on sentinels was very balanced, and I appreciate it. Whether you're for or against the law's purpose, it helps to see both sides of the debate.
What does need said, however, is that some of the problems with the stated bill, and why school districts won't take it up, could be easily remedied by removing the bill and simply extending the normal carry of firearms into school buildings, should the district allow.
• "It's expensive." This is how it will go with our gun-free laws: I promise you I'm coming for you over damages if my son is shot, since you're the one who said "no guns for you, or anyone else." Find another insurance company. Our kids are worth more than that.
• "It's dangerous." How can it be any more dangerous than the 26 killed at Newtown? The 13 at Columbine? The 32 at Virginia Tech? It can't. There's no conceivable way someone with any sense of morality and the basic knowledge of how firearms work could "accidentally" kill that many, even in some Wild West shootout. For that matter, only three were killed at the O.K. Corral, so perhaps the Wild West is preferable after all.
• "We have a SRO." One person patrols the entire district. Any criminal psychotic enough to do evil probably will look for a cop car outside the school before shooting starts.
My suggestion: Just allow permit holders to cross that invisible line and not be felons for it. Criminals will cross, anyway.