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.
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?