Even in this time of political division, there are some things that Americans agree on. One of these is that we want our children to be safe. This is particularly true when it comes to safety at school. It is hard to imagine anything more unspeakably horrifying than the reported 50 school shootings so far this year in the United States.

It is not surprising that parents, teachers and school administrators want to do something to change this situation. No one wants to see this continue.

One proposal before the Greenfield School Committee is to place a police officer (school resource officer) in each school. Regardless of how this is packaged, the actual rationale is that anyone thinking about planning violence at a school will be deterred from doing so by the possibility that they will face an armed response. The second part of this is that if an assailant does enter a school, an officer will eliminate them.

The problem with both these ideas is that historically people inclined toward this type of violence don’t care about (and at times seek) getting killed. The other big problem is that even the most unsophisticated and deranged Americans enjoy the ability to access deadly weapons that are far more lethal than anything an SRO would be carrying around a school. Think water pistol vs. fire hose.

Research that has been done indicates that schools with police officers see a reduction in physical altercations between students. What is also found are increases in out-of-school suspensions and arrests, and a decrease in graduation rates. The presence of a police officer in a school makes it more likely that students will enter and stay in the criminal justice system.

Conside,r for instance, how a student acting up in class could meet the Massachusetts legal standard for disturbing the peace, a criminal act. The charge is based on one being unreasonably loud and disruptive. Behaviors that teachers and other school officials wouldn’t consider necessary for police involvement suddenly escalate to that level due to the SRO presence in the school.

It is reasonable to worry about the safety of our kids. What is not reasonable is putting plans in place that make us feel better without solving the problem: the easy access and availability of guns. Most Americans favor common-sense gun laws including a ban on assault-style weapons. Many Americans realize that a gun in the house is three times more likely to be used on a family member than someone outside the home. Rather than be used to fend off a home invasion, firearms end up shortening the lives of depressed teenagers, lonely seniors and quarreling spouses.

It is well known that Americans have lots of guns. Less well known is that a full 50% of those guns are owned by just 3% of the population. Though most Americans do not see the need to own a gun, there is widespread acceptance of their neighbors having them. This comes with the caveat that systems (such as background checks, red flag laws) are in place to make sure that guns don’t fall into the wrong hands.

In this country, we screen and evaluate individuals with relation to safety in many ways. Just think about the last time you have been inside an airport or applied for employment.

Some of those who argue for unfettered access to almost any kind of gun for almost anyone that wants one point to the Second Amendment. Such a notion is based on a relatively recent interpretation of that one part of the Constitution. Others argue that there is a right for “the people” to have firearms to defend against a government that becomes tyrannical. I don’t know if advocates of this assertion have really thought things through (or examined the Constitution as a whole). Why would the Founders support a provision that allows the violent attack on the representative government they had recently established?

On a practical note, who decides when ” the government” has become “tyrannical” to the point that it’s time to take up arms? For some, health requirements such as requiring vaccines crosses the line. For others, it may be strongly held beliefs about election integrity. At one point, are we all supposed to grab our guns and fight, and who do we shoot at?

The U.S. military is part of the Department of Defense and therefore part of the federal government. Will armed Americans be fighting against the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and Marines? How about Space Force? At what point do we know it’s all settled and we can go home? And finally, at such a point, who is left in charge?

This, like other arguments insisting that Americans should be allowed to have as many and whatever weapon they want quickly falls apart when considered against what is best for citizens as a whole. Liking and wanting firearms is not enough of a reason to stand in the way of sensible regulation. There is nothing particularly American about ignoring the fact that everyday people including schoolchildren are dying needlessly because adults can’t come together over this issue. And no, armed guards at schools are no substitute for the hard work we need to do as a nation.

It has been said that courage is doing the right thing even when afraid. It remains to be seen if Americans will be brave enough to change.

Edward M. Dowd lives in Greenfield.