A press briefing is a poor time to exhibit that kind of humor. Was there a guard or wasn't there?

Not that it much matters, because crazed killers don't care about guards. Most of them expect to die anyway, and, as Bobert says, they're at least as likely to get the drop on the guard as the other way round, because the nut is already loaded and locked.

You're unlikely to deter a lunatic with a high-power weapon. Given enough cases, sure, a guard might get the guy before he can kill anybody, or as many as he wants. But in other cases the guard will be killed too (unless he's on duty with an automatic at the ready, just waiting for somebody to look suspicious). And in some cases the guard will kill innocent bystanders because gunfights are chaos. Unlike in the movies.

Frankly, I think that a teacher with a concealed-carry permit would be marginally more effective than an armed guard, because at least he (or she) wouldn't announce his presence with a uniform.

But really: do we want people packing guns in schools and churches on the 1 in 10,000 chance that a crazed killer is going to show up? Guns that could be taken away from them by a crazed student? (Which might be more likely than the arrival of a calculating, outside killer. Who knows?)

We could probably save more lives nationally with 10,000 more traffic cops. Drunk drivers are a lot more easily halted or deterred.

As for guns being locked up, the alternative is not to have them locked up. Like Adam Lanza's mom, allegedly.

It's fascinating that the NRA's only remedy (guards, cops, and armed teachers) is also the only one that would bring in 100,000 more gun sales. Closing the gun-show loophole on background checks wouldn't, and the NRA - official lobby of the firearms industry - is agin it.

Coincidence, I'm sure.