ThinkProgress reports on Libertarian/Republican Congressman Ron Paul's comments suggesting that armed guards in schools would create an Orwellian police state:
Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches? We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided “security,” a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.
(Selection and emphasis by ThinkProgress)
This is an awesome point. But ThinkProgress follows it up with many of the problems with Ron Paul's connected views -- which I think reflects the overall problems with Ron Paul's politics. He's good at identifying major problems and standing up to them. He's not so good at providing reasonable, evidence-based solutions to those problems.
Unfortunately, Paul also repeated several myths about guns in an attempt to equate calls for regulation of gun ownership with the NRA’s lunacy. His suggestion that “more guns equals less crime” is belied by the most recent research; the reverse is most likely true. Likewise, Paul’s claim that “private gun ownership prevents many shootings” is not supported by any real research. And the idea that gun control can’t work because “criminals don’t obey laws”misunderstands the several policy proposals on the table that would almost certainly save lives.
Paul appears to simply oppose any action to address gun murders, saying somewhat bizarrely that “our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence.” His conclusion is the same as that of the editors of National Review: mass murder is the price of freedom.