The recent tragedy in Connecticut has brought about responses as to how we can better protect our children.

The NRA's response to put armed guards in all schools might sound like a plausible fix, but will not be the end all solution in protecting our children.

Frank Sutherland's letter to the editor ["In the end, Obama cares little for kids' safety," Feb. 14] is yet another "blame it on the president" response. He stated that the president should have immediately put armed guards in every school, no matter the cost. Really?

Armed guards in every school would be a deterrent, but in the end would be no more effective in preventing shootings than putting up nets on bridges would prevent suicides. The shooter would probably take out the guard first.

Even if the guard is in plain clothes and less identifiable, will the guard be everywhere at all times? Is it assumed that the guard will easily identify the perpetrator, shoot first, and hit his target (and not some innocent student) every time.

Recently a guy killed two people inside a Delaware courthouse. Do you suppose there were a few armed guards somewhere in the vicinity of the courthouse? Two police officers were injured in that ordeal. So much for the idea that the good guys always prevail.

Guns are an efficient means of killing. Yes, people die from other means as well, but I have yet to hear about a person who killed a dozen people with a baseball bat before he turned the bat on himself.

Guns don't kill people, people with issues kill people, and no amount of money is going to effectively identify when that person with issues is going to spring to action.

Bryan Stableford

Fredericksburg