The question posed in your recent editorial “Gun fight” [May 5, 2016] is whether allowing educators to bring firearms to K–12 schools in New York would protect students against gun violence. The editorial considers the question in the context of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy.

In arguing that arming educators is a bad idea, a few hypothetical situations involving armed educators are presented, outcomes are postulated and a tacit conclusion is drawn: Educators should not be allowed to bring firearms to school.

The scenarios are typical straw-man arguments. Nothing substantive can be deduced from them. One may argue just as readily that an armed educator would likely successfully protect the lives of his or her students from an armed aggressor. Straw-man arguments obfuscate. They do not elucidate.

The editorial concludes by discussing another matter entirely: the need to provide adequate mental health care for deeply disturbed individuals. This is no more than a stopgap. The suggestion does not address deeply disturbed individuals who slip through the cracks; nor does it address the issue of criminals and terrorists who threaten soft targets like schools.

So, if the invasion of schools by armed lunatics, terrorists or assorted criminals cannot be contained and, through time, becomes pervasive and, if educators are not armed, what is the alternative? There is one we can think of: A large contingent of armed police officers, peace officers or private armed security to protect students, faculty and administrators in schools. That will work, but at what cost to taxpayers? One armed guard, as the editorial writer admits, will arguably never be enough.

Stephen L. D'Andrilli, retired