Thinking about school safety

The Community Advocate ^ | 12/3/13 | Sherman

[pabianice]

Guns are again the topic of conversation across the nation in the aftermath of the Connecticut school mass shooting. Opinions range from banning all but flint-lock rifles to having the federal government ensure a police office on duty in every school. Unfortunately, neither of these ideas can work. Banning private firearms violates the Constitution, the most recent Supreme Court decisions, and public sentiment. On the other hand, a police officer at each school would be too expensive to afford when our government representatives refuse to cut any spending at all, even if it is to spend two million dollars to study how fast a shrimp can run on a treadmill.

So let me make a modest proposal. How about a website called saveourgrandkids.org. Everyone receiving Social Security would be encouraged to donate twenty dollars a month. In Massachusetts in 2011, there were 197,327 recipients of Social Security. That would amount to $3,947,000 a year. There were 1,934 public schools in Massachusetts as of 2011. The pay and benefits of a policeperson runs, on average, about $60,000/year. The $20 monthly donations would fund 65 officers without the towns having to contribute anything. If the school protection detail were to rotate each officer each day among schools, it would mean that at least once each month on average an armed officer would appear at any one school in their own unmarked cars. Bad guys with guns would never know which day they could be expected to be met by a good guy or gal with a gun when they decided to shoot innocent students and teachers.

I know this is simplistic, but it’s a good idea. I realize most SSI recipients are disabled rather than retired, but is $20 so much for greatly enhanced safety of a school kid? People have written that there are never any mass shootings at police stations, NRA conventions, or military firearms ranges. Duh. It is clear that not even the craziest murderer is crazy enough to strike where they know they are likely to be shot dead in short order. Rather, they strike in the insanely dangerous, so-called “gun free zones.”

Who knows? If this idea were to catch-on, perhaps people would give more than $20/month to save the lives of their kids and grandkids. Towns might even contribute.

Crazy, huh?

[pallis]

Not all kids can go to school where Obama’s kids go, but they should have the same safety that comes from having armed guards.

[rmh47]

I've got an even better idea. Let's just get the federal government out of the schools entirely.

There are plenty of parents, grandparents, and retired or current police officers who would be willing to volunteer a day or two a month, or even a day a week to keep their children or grandchildren or neighbors' children safe...with guns.

Let the schools which want to protect their students do so without federal government intervention, and let the schools which wish to do so prevent guns from being brought onto their property.

Such a program would cost the schools nothing and would offer a reasonable chance of keeping the kids safe. Those who prefer ideological purity would reap whatever consequences that flow from that stance.

No new laws are required for this plan, although some existing laws may have to be repealed.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

People have written that there are never any mass shootings at police stations, NRA conventions, or military firearms ranges. Duh. It is clear that not even the craziest murderer is crazy enough to strike where they know they are likely to be shot dead in short order.

Of course there was the guy who tried armed robbery of a gun store. He left in a body bag...You don't have to be smart to be a criminal but it helps a lot if you expect to be an old criminal.

Regards,
GtG