Posted on 12/22/2012 5:13:24 AM PST by chrisnj
So they think our children are not as precious as the congresscritters, or the banks, and obama/soetoro/barry/whateverhisnameis is worth all the protection that guns can provide but, OUR KIDS have to be left defenseless
(answer - any way they can...)
What happened to the request? Did the GOP oppose it then?
Bookmark
Bookmark
Bookmark
Bookmark
Bookmark
Did Clinton specifically propose armed cops in schools?
Sorry, but federal funding for this stuff—even on the small scale Clinton proposed—was wrong then and—especially on the huge scale the NRA is proposing—now.
The Clinton program at least was aimed at inner-city schools where the students were so violent that they needed, and routinely have, armed guards.
So apparently the program was well underway when he asked for more money.
Well, we’re broke, remember, and more deficit spending is a bad idea, so how much should taxes go up to pay for the guards and increased mental health treatment?
Well, they did point out that Clinton ignored the cultural problems of violent video games and violent movies, because he took campaign cash from Hollywood.
Note that the request Brietbart made wasn’t an initial request, it was additional spending — they had already spent money putting cops in schools before this request.
I don’t think cops in schools IS the long-term solution. The NRA seemed to suggest it as a short-term fix while the schools put in place programs to arm other people.
I think cops in schools are a bad idea. Most of the time they would have nothing to do — unless we fire someone in each school and give their job to the police officer, who no doubt could be trained to teach, or be an administrative assistant, or a janitor.
And I disagree that we need an interim solution, because frankly, kids rarely get killed in school. 500 kids a year are killed accidentally by guns, for example.
58 children age 5-9 were murdered by guns in 2010 that is about half the murders — of the other 53 murders, 13 were unspecified.
But 385 children ages 1-4 were murdered in 2010. And of those, 163 were “unclassified”, and only 43 were by gun.
There just aren’t enough kids killed in schools to make it cost-effective. We’d be protecting some of the safest places in the country (albeit the places most likely to have mass murder).
Now, if you can figure out where the mass murders will take place, you could target police and increase the cost-effectiveness. Good luck with that in this environment. These murders mostly take place in rich white schools, because that what generates the most media attention, the people in those areas are the ones with the most disposable income and therefore spend the most time playing violent video games and watching violent movies.
See, if you look at who commits these murders, and where they happen, it will point the finger at the “wrong” people.
Anyway, by focusing police on schools, we remove focus from all the other places where a mass murderer might attack.
Want to know what the best law for this is? DADT. Take down the gun free zone posters and no one knows who is carrying and who isn’t.
LIBERAL HYPOCRISY ON DISPLAY!
Just an armed guard at the door to examine a child or teacher's backpack or briefcase on entry, then buzz them in. Same for visitors or strangers, only more intensive, and with permission from the office.
I've worked in several GE and DuPont research facilities, and visited in several more customers' plants. Works well everywhere, daily, for every entry or exit.
These companies don't require that the population or their own employees turn in their firearms. Just don't bring them to work. Ammo or drugs -- get a trained dog to sit with the guards.
What is the problem with these emptyheaded media, government, and agitator hacks? Even the NRA lackeys!
Forget making laws! Just suggest this to school boards, and let the local administration fund and implement it. Get the Feds and State out of it!
It is a matter of setting priority.
Are the children worth the costs of protection?
Until the lunatics/criminals are locked up to prevent further massacre, we need to protect the kids.
At any level, by any reasonable means - locally, at state level or at the fed level.
Locally implemented procedures are good, but the teacher’s unions are idiot gun control freaks - not much chance for armed protection.
States are broke, but if parents want protection for their kids, they will have to help with the expenses for guards/police;
Obozo’s idiotic (and hypocritical) idea on protection is to have ‘gun free zone’ for schools, and, to take away all guns from law-abiding citizens to render them defenseless. So forget about obozo!
Anyway, even their own Dem president Clinton believes in armed protection for our kids! What is the hold-up?
That is a bad idea, Just hire a guard, perhaps not even armed.
Most of the time they would have nothing to do — unless we fire someone in each school and give their job to the police officer, who no doubt could be trained to teach, or be an administrative assistant, or a janitor.
No! you give the guard nothing else to do except to ... guard!
But the whole school is impossible for one, or even many, to patrol if the entrance is open to anyone, anytoime, and unmonitored constantly. The whole principle of security is to control who is in the building, when they are to be there, how many are to be there, what they are there for, and what they bring in or take out.
The idea is to funnel everyone through one entry point.
Every child or teacher with a card.
Every one passes the guard.
Every container may be opened for content.
Containers randomly searched.
Every one passes through a metal detector.
Other building doors allow exiting only into a securely fenced assembly yard.
Vehicles parked outside the fence.
Deliveries passed in only by the guard, positively authorized by the office.
All visitors vetted and permitted by the office.
Etc., etc. write your own scenario, but this requires no roaming guards, only teacher or student monitors.
This does not require an armed-to-the-teeth officer with arresting powers! If the guard does not buzz you in, you go somewhere else. You don't hang around, or enter the building at will.
Is this rocket science, or what?
Is some kind of diagram needed?
The way I look at it -
we have to counter their argument. We can’t just let them scream gun ban to render all of us defenseless!
They want to ban guns from good men,
we want to protect the kids with good men with guns!
With such high unemployment, I think we can easily recruit retired policemen or security guards to be the trained first responders at schools.
It is useless to present them with statistics and data to suggest where the protection is mostly need.
1 innocent child murdered is 1 too many. Parents and people in their community will have to take up the issue and act.
Perhaps different communities will tackle it differently - e.g. some ban guns entirely and some provide armed protection at schools.
We will see whose method works best!
Keep obozo out of this!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.