School Shootings #4

Both the spokesmen for Bernie Sanders and Vermont Congressman Peter Welch seemed to rebut my premise that if you are against metal detectors and gunpowder dogs, you are for the massacre of schoolchildren as a pretext for taking the individual's guns. I didn't challenge that, but I will with future assertions. I'm admittedly a literalist, but what else would be the reason for not having detectors and dogs that makes sense? I know about the crazies, the psychopaths, the ACLU, and, of course, the Russians. The world isn't perfect and isn't going to be.
     I see that South Carolina Representative Wendell Gilliard has long been a supporter of metal detectors in schools and that Boston Chief of Police for Public Schools, Eric Weston, praises metal detectors for keeping guns entirely out of schools and reducing the number of knives. He recommends metal detectors. I'd like to ask these gentlemen if they have been attacked for their praise of metal detectors and why. If they have been attacked, I'd like to ask if they suspected the motivation of the attackers was that the attackers didn't seem to want a solution to school shootings. I'd like to know if any attackers either blatantly said or implied that finding a solution to school shootings through metal detectors and gunpowder dogs obscured "the larger problem" of individual gun ownership. Finding anyone sick or stupid enough to say that would be the motherlode to my thesis that collectivists don't care about individuals, indeed would happily murder them for structure that strengthens central command. In this case, the structure would be a law banning gun ownership by the individual.
Only central command could own guns. Which means the Obama/Clinton Progressive Party which has already infiltrated the top echelons of the FBI, CIA, and NSA. I guess I have to go now and catch my missile. Nick