But putting yet another union goon on the payroll, sucking up benefits, enjoying long vacations, and in the end, doing the job that anyone else at that school COULD do is a massive waste of funds and time.
The school in CT invested more than $50,000 in electronic locks to ‘secure’ the school, where $5,000 in guns, ammo and training would have made a real difference. So the ‘solution’ is to pay someone $85-90k a year to do the same thing that $5,000 would do?
Only a government could even imagine thinking in these terms.
I think LaPierre was right to propose this as an equal measure against what Obama and Left are proposing simply to meet them on the same “high ground” they purport to occupy. The unwashed masses, those people who are agnostic on guns and just go with whatever Big Brother says, will be more apt to get behind a proposal that puts law enforcement at the schools than they would be to get behind a proposal that arms teachers and administrators.
The cry from the Left and from teachers unions, specifically, would be so loud as to be deafening if it was mandated that schools be armed. They would likely outright refuse. And given the media’s maligning of guns and framing of your average citizen as a potential “criminal in waiting” just because they’re armed, the unwashed public would likely fall in line with the media narrative but would not be swayed on the LEO line since they view LEOs as their protectors.
It’s an incremental step to divert the discussion away from gun bans and allows the NRA a little breathing room. I’m by no means advocating for this, I’m simply saying it was a bold political move on the part of the NRA. They’re actually offering a solution instead of wobbling on their stance. They’re in a tough spot. People identify as parents to the death of children. To propose MORE guns to people who are middle-of-the-road on the subject would require more education than the media is going to allow to occur.