Community Education Council 31 in Staten Island voted to put armed retired police officers in city schools.

This made knee-jerk liberal Bloomberg react, "I think it's a terrible idea."

Bloomberg is such a consistent, monolithic ideologue that he'd rather see the children of Staten Island endangered than revise his thinking to protect them.

Bloomberg no longer has young children; maybe he cares less about ours than he does about his own consistent liberal ideology.

Bloomberg says, "We can't just have a police officer standing next to every single person."

Whoever said that we wanted such a foolish thing?  Bloomberg posits an apocryphal argument to reflect badly on the right and then puts it down.

The CEC proposal actually calls for retired police officers, armed with hidden handguns, to rove from school to school.

"It's another layer of defense," Pirozzolo, CEC president, said.  "We're looking to let the bad guys know, if you choose a school on Staten Island in New York City, you may have resistance.  We're not a soft target."

 How can you argue with this?  Bloomberg wants to pretend that guns in the hands of protectors and in the hands of criminals are the same thing.  He is a liberal painting black and white gray.  He doesn't respect that reality is not a figment of utopian ideals, but rather a pragmatic result of day-to-day facts. 

As for the coterie of dunces, Chancellor Dennis Walcott's office announced: "We know what works.  Putting an armed guard in every school building is not the answer."

Based on what, Dennis?  Were you there at Sandy Hook in the brain of Adam Lanza listening to his thoughts and hearing him think, "No guards to stop me"?

You sound like Obama: all talk, no pre-teleprompter thoughts, and no results.  Does Walcott think we live in a garden instead of a jungle and that guns in the hands of protectors would not work against criminals? 

Police guns would have stopped the bloodshed at Newton.  Walcott, like Bloomberg, is a mouth without a brain, a retort without validity.  If he really knew the answer to stopping violence, he might come up with something more interesting than the liberal cliché that violence doesn't protect against violence.

Whatever Walcott says, he doesn't know why murder is proliferating.  If he did know the answer, wouldn't he have stopped the bloodshed?