"When we declare our schools to be gun-free zones, it just puts our students in far greater danger."
The president of the United States is well-known to have freewheeling style, but many of his comments inflame rather than inform debates. The comment above came this week and seemed aimed at uprooting a cornerstone of school-safety policy on the fly, and it came after the president added another fiery idea to the gun debate in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., massacre of 17 students. Earlier this week, he called for arming teachers as a way to stop school shootings so that they _ the teachers _ could "immediately fire back if a savage sicko came to a school with bad intentions."
The response? Something akin to half the country concluded there is not a political deal to be cut on this issue with the president.
There are numerous policy ideas that have a chance to address the pressing national need to stop mass shootings from killing more Americans. But very few of them have a chance to reach the floor for debate when the man with the loudest voice keeps shouting out ideas that drive both sides apart. Americans _ on both sides _ are more passionate about guns than about nearly any other political issue, and that is saying something in this age of divisive politics.
The gun debate is riven with emotions that are rightly tied to events involving the slaughter of innocent Americans. And the issue will only be addressed by policies that both elicit wide support and offer creative solutions to complex problems. We'll never get there if a key figure in that debate continues to drop rhetorical bombs.
