I appreciate the insightful questions with which Melissa Block interviewed David Keene of the NRA. Mr. Keene sought to steer clear of those by contending that the issue 'is the person.' If that is indeed the issue, then he should have no problem with a national register of gun owners who have been adequately trained and tested in proper gun use.

The government has deemed that the risk of misuse and harm through the use of an automobile is of such significance that each of the various states requires drivers to pass a test to prove their competence before being permitted to operate a vehicle. Those operators are required to carry that license and produce it when asked by a law enforcement officer. We consider that prudence.

To take it a step farther, each of the automobiles must be registered with the government and maintained in a way that they can be safely operated. Operators of vehicles that are larger and have greater potential for harm (large trucks, buses, etc.) are required to take more extensive training.

What is more, all owners of vehicles are required to maintain liability, and even injury, insurance in the event of accident or misuse of a vehicle. Those who use a vehicle bear the cost of its use or misuse.

To parody the common argument—it could be argued, 'cars don't kill people, people kill people.' Perhaps, but we take extensive measures to minimize death by automobile. Likewise, with the extreme potential for harm and loss of life, it seems prudent that every means be utilized to minimize the risk of injury caused with firearms by:
1) registering all guns
2) licensing all owners and users
3) restricting high capacity firearms to law enforcement or very carefully regulated situations, and
4) requiring gun owners and users to carry liability insurance to cover loss by accidental or intentional misuse of that weapon (they use the guns as 'insurance'; the rest of society needs insurance from their mistakes and misactions).

The NRA's suggested solution has questionable merit and poses a conflict of interest on their part. To propose that armed guards be posted at every school is both excessive and insufficient—excessive because of the cost to communities; insufficient because there could never be sufficient personnel or funds to provide 'safety' in all of the vulnerable places. Wherever there is a gathering of students or other individuals there is the potential for mass murder—buses, bus stops, PTA meetings, field trips, museums, sporting events, Little League games, shopping centers, movie theaters, subway stops, the situations are endless. And would these 'guards' be equipped with high capacity firearms? An attacker (or group of attackers) could overwhelm someone less equipped. And would we want a school guard to be stationed on campus with a high capacity firearm? That would significantly raise the stakes and potential for danger as students get caught in the cross fire.

An old African proverb is--"When the elephants fight, the grass is trampled." So are the children.

Let’s seek ways to minimize the danger, not exacerbate it.