White House may back armed guards in schools after all

posted at 10:41 am on January 11, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Interesting, if only because of the near-unanimous derision that resulted when the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre proposed the idea a week after the Newtown shooting.  Critics hooted at LaPierre’s detachment from reality before they realized that Bill Clinton had demanded and received the same funding — through the COPS program.  We’ll get back to Clinton in a moment, but first let’s take a look at Barbara Boxer’s sudden adoption of the NRA proposal:

The Obama administration is considering funding many more police officers in public schools to secure campuses, a leading Democratic senator said, part of a broad gun violence agenda that is likely to include a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips and universal background checks.

The school safety initiative, one of several under consideration, would make federal dollars available to schools that want to hire police officers and install surveillance equipment, although it is not nearly as far-ranging as the National Rifle Association’s proposal for armed guards in every U.S. school.

The idea is gaining currency among some Democratic lawmakers, who see it as a potential area of common ground with Republicans who otherwise oppose stricter restrictions on firearms. Sen. Barbara Boxer, a liberal Democrat from California, said she presented the plan to Vice President Biden and that he was “very, very interested” and may include it in the policy recommendations he makes to President Obama.

“If a school district wants to have a community policing presence, I think it’s very important they have it,” Boxer said in an interview Thursday. “If they want uniformed officers, they can do it. If they want plainclothed officers, they can do it.”

The key here is if they want it.  I’d oppose this as a mandate, and in theory, I’d oppose federal funding for it at all.  Schools fall under local and state jurisdiction for law enforcement, not the federal government.  If schools want armed guards, then their communities should find the resources to pay for it, not everyone else’s communities.  Given the rarity of these events, armed guards will likely never be needed anyway, but that’s a peace-of-mind decision for the cities and localities to decide.

Butler County in Pennsylvania has managed to make this decision on their own, for instance:

Butler County had cut 75 teaching and administrative positions in the past five years because of a shrinking budget, but now the district of 7,500 students couldn’t hire armed guards fast enough. It had added a new insurance policy and $230,000 to the annual security budget in order to arm and employ at least 22 former state troopers — enough to station at least one guard at each school and every after-school event. In a town where hunting guns hang on the wall of the prosecutor’s office and the rifle team has won championships, the decision to arm guards had elicited a single protest. One family boycotted school for a day before returning the next.

The district’s hiring requirements for guards were at once simple and absolute: only retired state troopers with 20 years of experience who owned a gun and could pass a 60-round shooting test.

Cichra, 46, paced in the snow to keep warm and watched the first few troopers begin the test. He had been retired for exactly seven months on the day of the shooting in Newtown and that had felt like long enough. He couldn’t stand watching TV. Home improvement bored him. He had spent four years in the Army and 21 more on patrol — a career built on the hard reality of“good guys versus bad,” he said, and Newtown offered him another mission. He had three kids, ages 5, 14 and 17, attending schools near Butler.

“We might not like it, but the modern reality is our kids are vulnerable, and they need our help,” he said. “Nobody’s doing this job for money.”

As I said, I’d rather that cities and localities follow Butler County’s example.  However, if we must have “action” by the federal government on this issue, this is probably the most benign and the most on-point we’ll see.

Let’s go back to Bill Clinton, who has joined the Left’s push for gun-grabbing legislation … and their approach to honest debate.  After making hysterical and fact-free arguments about gun violence in America approaching epidemic levels, Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post gave him an epidemic of Pinocchios:

“Half of all mass killings in the United States have occurred since the assault weapons ban expired in 2005, half of all of them in the history of the country.”

— Former President Bill Clinton, at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Jan. 9, 2013

Grant Duwe, director of research and evaluation at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, assembled a data set going back 100 years for a 2007 book titled, “Mass Murder in the United States: A History.” He used the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports, which date from 1976, and then supplemented the FBI reports with news reports (principally The New York Times) dating from 1900. …

Duwe defines a mass public shooting as an incident in which four or more victims are killed publicly with guns within 24 hours — in the workplace, schools, restaurants and other public places — excluding shootings in connection with crimes such as robbery, drugs or gangs. (Note that this would exclude a number of “mass murders” that sometimes gets lumped into the data, such as the Beltway sniper who killed 10 people over a three-week period in 2002.)

Since 2005, when the assault ban expired, there have been 32 such mass public shootings, including seven in 2012, Duwe said. So that’s just over 20 percent of all mass public shootings, which is much less than Clinton’s 50 percent.

Actually, the worst decade for mass shootings in the last 100 years was the Clinton era with 42, although the 2010s are on a pace to tie.  Second worst was the 1980s with 32.  Last decade, even with the expiration of the “assault weapons” ban, had 28 such incidents.  Bear in mind that these are absolute numbers too, which don’t take into account increased population in the US.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Heh, reality smashes ideology…again.

When this is all over, it will be found that gun free zones are more more dangerous than guns.

cozmo on January 11, 2013 at 10:43 AM

White House may back armed guards in schools after all

If the Obamanation Administration is backing it, then you know there is something fatally flawed with the idea. This is the only real solution to the problem. Time for a Mandatory Federal Firearms Law, Enter the Affordable Firearms Act.

SWalker on January 11, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Armed security destroys the liberal meme about them taking our guns.

This is lip service.

Liam on January 11, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Schools fall under local and state jurisdiction for law enforcement, not the federal government. If schools want armed guards, then their communities should find the resources to pay for it, not everyone else’s communities.

You think that will really happen? This government will take any chance to put TSA types in the schools. Second base will be a lot more common after the fed security shows up.

LaughterJones on January 11, 2013 at 10:45 AM

1. So, our public schools where our kids are, under the control of the NEA and guarded by goons from DHS run by commie Democrats.

2. So, advisor to Obama, William Ayers, can not pass a back ground check to own a gun due to his back ground of bombing the public.

3. Obama and Holder both if given a true background check due to the cross border illegal gun running to Mexico and the death of BP office Brian Terry could not own guns themselves.

4. Beware of commies bringing gifts wraped in lies.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 11, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Leavin NYC today to head to the family’s place for the weekend. Gonna’ stop at a couple gun stores on the way.

Hoping to add another AR to the gun closet.

I feel so excited hehehe

blatantblue on January 11, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Why is the federal government considering funding this? Dammit, when will we return to Constitutional governance?

How many Republicans will support this idea?

Charlemagne on January 11, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Evolving…. Puhleeze

NEA outrage on reducing # of teachers in 5…4…3

cmsinaz on January 11, 2013 at 10:50 AM

How many Republicans will support this idea?

Charlemagne on January 11, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Too many.

cozmo on January 11, 2013 at 10:50 AM

How many Republicans will support this idea?

Charlemagne on January 11, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Too many.

cozmo on January 11, 2013 at 10:50 AM

But teh NRA said it was a good idea! Fall in line you conservatives! You’re getting in the way of bi-partisanship! etc…

LaughterJones on January 11, 2013 at 10:53 AM

There’s also a number of incidents that didn’t become mass shootings because people on the scene were armed and put an end to it.

gwelf on January 11, 2013 at 10:53 AM

LaughterJones on January 11, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I meant the federal funding, not the armed guards.

Charlemagne on January 11, 2013 at 10:54 AM

TSA in every school! I think we should make it as efficient as airport security. All students have to remove shoes, walk through naked body scanners, have their books x-rayed, and be sexually assaulted by TSA agents in order to get to class.

Then, of course, the next shooter will just go in through the loading dock instead of the front door, but hey — at least people will FEEL safer.

Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 10:55 AM

They are MAGAZINES, you flaming idiots, not clips!
The last common weapon to use a clip was the WW2 M1 Garand.

michaelo on January 11, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Have fun blatant blue :)

cmsinaz on January 11, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Mass shooting = 4 or more, why that’s a normal summer evening of murder in Detroit or Chicago…so I guess 4 in one place is worse than a dozen spread across the city??

right2bright on January 11, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Hee hee hee hee hee.

Wait until Barky agrees with it, the liberal backtracking will something beautiful.

Bishop on January 11, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Yeah, I hope the people that were doing the ‘derision’ have microphones shoved in their faces asking them for consistent comment – and then asking them if they thought Bill Clinton was a frigging nutcase for suggesting the same damn thing back in the 90′s – but wait, not just suggesting it, but FUNDING it.

Midas on January 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM

The police or armed security in schools is the best idea of protecting these schools… However the danger is the financial aspect of it in particular that communist Boxer is proposing new federal fund for new police and armed security to protect schools… There are almost 100,000 public school in the US and if each hired two police officers or armed security guard then they need 200,000 new police officers or security guards… Now if each of police officer cost the tax payers $ 100,000 a year between salary and benefits then we the tax payers are going to pay a total of $ 40 Billion a year for the police officers or armed guards in schools around the US…

So what is the solution? Have the existing police officers in town and cities guard the schools… Some will say it will put a strain on the police to do other things… I doubt it… Most of the time the police officers are sitting in their stations doing nothing…

mnjg on January 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Sorry the cost is $ 20 billions not $ 40 billions…

mnjg on January 11, 2013 at 11:00 AM

They are MAGAZINES, you flaming idiots, not clips!
The last common weapon to use a clip was the WW2 M1 Garand.

michaelo on January 11, 2013 at 10:55 AM

We get it; what’s the point of this indignant outrage, by the way?

Not all facial tissues are “Kleenex”; shall we throw a hissy fit everytime someone refers to a non-Kleenex incorrectly?

How about referring to a bandage as a ‘band-aid’? Or a flying disc as a ‘frisbee’?

Really? *This* is what requires outrage?

Midas on January 11, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Hee hee hee hee hee.

Wait until Barky agrees with it, the liberal backtracking will something beautiful.

Bishop on January 11, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Beautiful? ~snort~

Liberals muck up everything the touch. Their idea of feeding the homeless is a free booklet to teach ‘safe’ dumpster diving.

Liam on January 11, 2013 at 11:02 AM

The key here is if they want it. I’d oppose this as a mandate, and in theory, I’d oppose federal funding for it at all.

I’m catagorically against the idea as part of any federal solution. Look, as horrific as the Sandy Hook shooting was, these incidents are rare and when they do occur it is apt to be more like yesterday’s incident in California where the shooter was targeting specific people. Parents do not send their children off to school scared that a shooter will show up (which is what makes the Sandy Hook shooting all the more horrific). Somebody will have to prove the need for armed guards in every school and the cost effectiveness of doing so before I sign on to any such idea. That’s not to say that some schools should have armed guards but that is as much for other reasons and not just to stop another Sandy Hook.

Happy Nomad on January 11, 2013 at 11:02 AM

The Obama administration is considering funding many more police officers in public schools to secure campuses

Opting for the semblance of security.

chemman on January 11, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Wait until Barky agrees with it, the liberal backtracking will something beautiful.

Bishop on January 11, 2013 at 10:57 AM

So will the conservative back tracking. It’s a terrible idea. It’s way too expensive, and if the schools felt they needed it, they would already have a cop. Many districts do. But to waste our federal money when we’re 16 TRILLION (and counting) in debt is nuts!

Want a totally free way to solve this problem? Repeal federal gun free zone laws, and let anyone who wants to carry a gun in the school carry one. Parents, students (on college campuses), teachers, janitors, principals, whatever.

And if no one wants to carry, then the district can use their own money to hire a retired cop (who will be the first one shot during a rampage). I’m sick of paying for stuff like this, this will definitely become a way out of control super expensive program that accomplishes NOTHING and will simply allow districts to move money around and find more creative ways to waste local tax payer dollars.

Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 11:02 AM

They are MAGAZINES, you flaming idiots, not clips!
The last common weapon to use a clip was the WW2 M1 Garand.

michaelo on January 11, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Yeah, we have been over that time and again…ordinary, average people see “clips” and “magazines” as the same…I have ex-military friends that will say “throw me that clip”, it’s no big deal, like mixing up their and there…in casual speaking no big deal, or trying to get a thought out no big deal…a serious dissertation or journal report, magazine is the term to use (most often).

If I walked into any quality gun store and say I wanted a clip for my rifle, a smart sales person would say “we have some great magazines over here that will fill your need”, not “Sorry pal, we don’t have any clips, but I will sell you a magazine if that’s what you mean”…get it?

right2bright on January 11, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Agreed. I hate the idea. The repealing of gun free zones would solve most of the problem. The rest lies in the mental health realm. All we’re accomplishing here is wasting more money and expanding government. No wonder Obama’s now on board.

Kataklysmic on January 11, 2013 at 11:06 AM

So what is the solution? Have the existing police officers in town and cities guard the schools… Some will say it will put a strain on the police to do other things… I doubt it… Most of the time the police officers are sitting in their stations doing nothing…

mnjg on January 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Fine, and most big cities with “busy’ police departments already have school resource officers in the schools. Most towns, like Newtown, have huge unionized police forces setting up seatbelt checkpoints since there is ZERO crime in the town. If small towns want to station a cop at the schools, FINE, but don’t use my federal tax dollars to pay for this.

I don’t think any schools need to transform themselves into prisons to keep the kids safe. Repeal federal gun free zone laws and nutjobs will be much less likely to go to a school when they want to kill as many people as possible. They shoot up schools because they know no one (or, maybe one cop) is armed. If one person is armed, and identifiable as such, they will be the first one killed. Just let citizens defend themselves and their children.

Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 11:06 AM

What a difference a gun free zone makes.Sandy Hook was gun free and the consequences are unbearable.

Sullivan Central High School has an armed resource Officer AND the principle is armed.

THE DIFFERENCE COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR

Naturally the media refuses to cover the other Sandy hook.

HotAirian on January 11, 2013 at 11:09 AM

The rest lies in the mental health realm. All we’re accomplishing here is wasting more money and expanding government. No wonder Obama’s now on board.

Kataklysmic on January 11, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Before shooting his mother, Adam Lanza had never committed a crime (as far as we know). I get uncomfortable with the idea of locking up all of the weirdos and kooks simply because they MAY become violent.

Who gets to decide who has “mental health problems?” I’m sure you’ve seen the articles over the years about how small government types have atypical brains compared to the enlightened liberals. Do you really want THOSE people deciding who gets locked up for life and who doesnt?

Most of these gunmen are loners that flew under the radar their whole lives. They’re nutjobs, but mostly showed no signs of being homocidal nutjobs before they pulled the trigger. Unfortunately, there isn’t much anyone can do about that.

Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 11:10 AM

mnjg on January 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Two armed guards in an elementary school would probably work out fine. Two armed guards on a 36 acre high school campus with a mile of fence line and multiple wings with class rooms would be next to useless. When seconds count the response time would be in minutes unless the armed guard happened to be in the wing where the shooting was taking place. Yes armed guards would be a piece of the puzzle in hardening campuses but the aren’t the sole answer.

chemman on January 11, 2013 at 11:10 AM

I agree with the above. Our taxes are up anyway, so appoint a guard at a school or let the janitor pack or something. What we dont want is armed people everywhere in our lives provided by government and them continuing to take our rights away since now government will be armed at every corner. Let US do it ourselves. When enough of these nut cases get blown away, watch how much less it starts to happen.

johnnyU on January 11, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Sure, more government employees on the payroll.

They should unionize immediately!
/s

Mr. Arrogant on January 11, 2013 at 11:12 AM

I’d oppose this as a mandate, and in theory, I’d oppose federal funding for it at all. Schools fall under local and state jurisdiction for law enforcement, not the federal government. If schools want armed guards, then their communities should find the resources to pay for it, not everyone else’s communities. Given the rarity of these events, armed guards will likely never be needed anyway, but that’s a peace-of-mind decision for the cities and localities to decide.

Indeed (although I disagree with the last sentence). My son’s elementary, Middle and H.S. often had “resource officers”, i.e. armed policemen/women present, with police cars parked outside entrance to school – all paid for locally. And no one wrung their hands in despair that the schools were “armed camps”, a complaint my lib friends are fond of citing.

However, I prefer concealed carry because these school campuses have numerous entrances/exits and are impossible to effectively patrol with just one “armed guard”. Moreover, guards can become a target – easy to knock out by determined crazed gunman, particularly if they are stationed at school doors. I like the concept of not knowing who has a gun.

As for the Pennsylvania solution, demanding 20 years experience is a wee bit excessive, but if that’s what they want, it’s their prerogative.

Buy Danish on January 11, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Rick Perry said Texas ISDs can choose to let trained and qualified teachers carry in their schools, if they so decide.

If ‘something must be done’, that makes sense.

I’m sure this went down very well with the Austin bien pensants.

CorporatePiggy on January 11, 2013 at 11:14 AM

I think there is a much more effective approach utilizing FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) in an attacker’s mind. States (not school boards) introduce a new employee option.

1) Teachers can VOLUNTARILY and with guaranteed CONFIDENTIALITY sign up for an on campus concealed carry permit.
2) They provide their own weapon and must pass an FBI backgound check.
3) They must pass the CCW permit process
4) They have to pass range target practice reqularly (like police do)
5) They will agree to have their gun CONCEALED and in a LOCKED drawer while at work. Locking trigger guards are optionional.
6) They agree to not reveal their status to anyone and no one else will know they are enrolled in the program. They get no badges, special uniforms, arm bands. Nothing.
7) they can withdraw from the program at any time. Confidentialy give them that freedom.
8) They will be rewarded with a very nice monthly bonus in their check.

and finally,

9) Signs that say “This is a gun-free zone” will be replaced with a sign that says “Warning: One or more or all of the teachers on this campus are armed”. This sign would be in place regardless of if ANY teachers are signed up for the program on that particular school. FUD.

I know there are many teachers that are repelled in horror at the thought. So don’t be involved. Again, it would be voluntary and confidential.

The confidentiality allows a teacher to balance the desire (and spouse’s concern) for self preservation in a crisis with the peer pressure from co workers.

kurtzz3 on January 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Another potential union – with guns. Of course they think that’s a good idea.

National Accademic Security Administration.

(No, wait. That would be NASA and we already have that for the National Arab Selfesteem Administration… I’m sure they’ll come up with their own snazzy monniker)

Anyway, it will be a good opportunity for universities to start up a much-needed PhD program in Educational Premises Infiltration Interdiction Studies. It will be expensive, but government assistance in the form of grants and repayment-free student loans will allow School Safety Tsar-selected candidates from all government-approved preferred classes and sub-classes to enter into and thrive in an exciting new career of spying on the captive children of suspected enemies of the state.

Of course they love it.

ROCnPhilly on January 11, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Who gets to decide who has “mental health problems?”

Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Fair point. “Are you or have you even been a member of the Tea Party? Yes? (sound of rubber stamp)

Kataklysmic on January 11, 2013 at 11:17 AM

However the danger is the financial aspect of it in particular that communist Boxer is proposing new federal fund for new police and armed security to protect schools… There are almost 100,000 public school in the US and if each hired two police officers or armed security guard then they need 200,000 new police officers or security guards… Now if each of police officer cost the tax payers $ 100,000 a year between salary and benefits then we the tax payers are going to pay a total of $ 40 Billion a year for the police officers or armed guards in schools around the US…

mnjg on January 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM

According to the above article, Butler County PA is spending only $230,000 for 22 officers. That’s only $10,454/year for each. Sounds way low to me.

cam2 on January 11, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Agreed. I hate the idea. The repealing of gun free zones would solve most of the problem. The rest lies in the mental health realm. All we’re accomplishing here is wasting more money and expanding government. No wonder Obama’s now on board.

Kataklysmic on January 11, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Sorry, I am going to have to disagree with the “Mental Health” portion of your statement. For those unaware, the “Mental Health” designation was how the Nazi’s, Stalin’s and Mao’s regimes eliminated their dissidents.

It is a common Marxist/Communist tactic used to lower troublesome individuals to sub-human status, deprive dissidents of what few rights/privileges they have, place them into detention facilities and them eliminate them.

Remember the immortal words of Joesph Stalin have more meaning then one. Stalin said, “it’s not the number of votes cast that decides an election, it’s who counts the votes”, in the case of mental health, it isn’t the designation of mental instability that counts, it’s who makes that designation.

The prime rule for all legislation considered by Conservatives should be this. Never sign off on or propose any legislation that in your sickest nightmare your worst enemy could find a way to use against you.

SWalker on January 11, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Buy Danish on January 11, 2013 at 11:13 AM

My highschool (in a zero crime town) had a school resource officer when I was a student there. I never saw the merit in having him wandering around making people nervous. A lot of times, the primary purpose of these cops is not to stop school shootings but to ask a lot of questions and find out who the drug dealers are, where the parties are, etc. etc. so they can arrest the students.

I know of at least 2 of my teachers that had concealed carry permits. Why not just repeal the law that makes them leave their guns at home, and let them carry them in class the same as they do in the supermarket?

Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 11:18 AM

I know there are many teachers that are repelled in horror at the thought. So don’t be involved. Again, it would be voluntary and confidential.

The confidentiality allows a teacher to balance the desire (and spouse’s concern) for self preservation in a crisis with the peer pressure from co workers.

kurtzz3 on January 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Uhhh… wouldnt it make more sense to just allow anyone with a CCW permit carry on school campuses and not go through that ridiculous process? If we trust CCW holders to carry in walmart, why cant they carry at a friggin high school? Just get rid of gun free zones all together, its a stupid idea.

So is giving overpaid teachers a bonus for excercizing their second amendment rights. And most CCW holders are much more range qualified then your average cop.

Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 11:22 AM

again, so long as its Americans working and not Government Armed Guards. We want the 2nd ammendment strengthened not weakened.

johnnyU on January 11, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Put an ED-209 in every school.

“You have 5 seconds to comply!”

Bishop on January 11, 2013 at 11:22 AM

kurtzz3 on January 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Giving notice that adults are armed just makes the teacher the first target. Walk in and pop the teacher then shoot the kids. It will limit it to one classroom but that is anywhere from 20 – 40 kids depending on the location of the school (rural verses urban/suburban)

chemman on January 11, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Oligula doesn’t rate. when it comes to protecting schools, it’s a local matter up to the police department and the citizens of the locality.

This is really funny from Oligula. Yesterday, Biden was threatening Executive Action. Today, Oligula is talking the opposite of what liberals have mocked.

I guess Biden’s ‘meeting’ about guns didn’t go quite so well for liberals, did it?

Liam on January 11, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Actually, the worst decade for mass shootings in the last 100 years was the Clinton era with 42, although the 2010s are on a pace to tie. Second worst was the 1980s with 32. Last decade, even with the expiration of the “assault weapons” ban, had 28 such incidents. Bear in mind that these are absolute numbers too, which don’t take into account increased population in the US.
============================================

Excellent fact-checking,so much for Pier Morgans
Mass-Murder facts,of the Children School Shooting,
as thee worst!

canopfor on January 11, 2013 at 11:23 AM

If I walked into any quality gun store and say I wanted a clip for my rifle, a smart sales person would say “we have some great magazines over here that will fill your need

right2bright on January 11, 2013 at 11:06 AM

To which I would probably say, “I don’t want it to fill my needs, I want it to fill my Glock.” ;0

But I gotta disagree with you. We are in a war with people who want to grab as many guns and types of guns as possible. Words matter. When Joe Biden says that he doesn’t want to take any lawful weapons out of the hands of Americans what he doesn’t say is that he wants to make the bandwidth of what are lawful weapons very small.

Happy Nomad on January 11, 2013 at 11:24 AM

If the government, whether it be by state, local, or federal law, creates a “gun-free” zone, then it seems reasonable that the legislators which created it… must also DEFEND it. And not with response times measured in minutes or tens of minutes, but in seconds. It blows my mind that at Sandy Hook unarmed women were the true “first responders”, rushing to the door bare-handed. That’s completely unacceptable, particularly given the fact that whatever legislators who contributed to the creation of this “gun-free” zone would have done their work while being protected by armed guards.

Murf76 on January 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

The prime rule for all legislation considered by Conservatives should be this. Never sign off on or propose any legislation that in your sickest nightmare your worst enemy could find a way to use against you.

SWalker on January 11, 2013 at 11:18 AM

I like that rule.

However, I fear that the “mental health” argument is a fait accompli. We’ll see how the government “identifies” people with mental health problems going forward. Whats the over / under on when Alex Jones and his ilk get a knock on the door from armed agents from the department of the mental health?

This program will probably fall under DHS, and will probably be highly political. While we’re all arguing about 10 rounds verse 15 rounds, I think the “mental health’ aspect of this whole thing is going to be the part that really comes to bite us all in the @ss — including the conservatives saying “guns dont kill people, government not locking up enough ‘mentally unhealthy’ people does!”

Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Bill Clinton LIED? Again?

GarandFan on January 11, 2013 at 11:28 AM

************** Alert ****************

France heads to war in Mali!

The Associated Press ‏@AP

BREAKING: Malian official confirms French military have arrived to help army fight Islamist advance.

canopfor on January 11, 2013 at 11:28 AM

kurtzz3 on January 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Yeah, we could do all that. I suppose…

Or we could relax open carry and concealed carry laws. After a couple of would-be mass attackers get put down before they even see a kid, you’d see no more of it.

That would never go over with the progs in power, however. There’s no freedom to infringe upon, no government contract to award to big prog donors, no money to waste.

Besides, it would actually be effective, which is the very worst outcome for any program as far as progs are concerned.

C’mon. You know it’s true.

ROCnPhilly on January 11, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Our local school district has a variety of parent participation opportunities. Just about every elementary class has a parent “helper” at least one day a week (most classes have more than one day a week). Parents come in and read to the kids for 30 minutes. The robotics team has parents come in to coach the kids. The list goes on.
I suspect that, at least for our district, getting a parent in every school with a concealed carry permit wouldn’t be that hard. Likewise, there would likely be at least one teacher in every school who would likely have the concealed carry permit.
Are these people likely to be as useful in a mass murderer situation as a 20 year state trooper? Probably not. But they would probably be as or more useful in preventing the mass murder. Even someone with a death wish would likely go looking for softer targets if they couldn’t be sure which or how many people would be armed in a school.
The cost would be zero. If the congress critters just have to be seen “doing something” allow those who carry a gun at school for X number of hours to be able to write off their ammunition, shooting range, etc expenses.
Would a program like this work for all school districts? No. But it would work for a lot of them.

yetanotherjohn on January 11, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Giving notice that adults are armed just makes the teacher the first target. Walk in and pop the teacher then shoot the kids. It will limit it to one classroom but that is anywhere from 20 – 40 kids depending on the location of the school (rural verses urban/suburban)

chemman on January 11, 2013 at 11:23 AM

I disagree. If this type of initiative is implemented properly, then very few people, with the exception of the principal and local law enforcement, actually know which teacher(s) is carrying a concealed firearm. Just like no one knows who the armed air marshal is on a plane until the shiite goes down, nobody really knows who to pop first.

Pale Rider on January 11, 2013 at 11:35 AM

White House may back armed guards in schools after all

In exchange for what? More restrictions on our second amendment rights?

No deal.

This administration is always looking to score political victories, regardless of the broader “unintended” consequences. Don’t fall into their trap!

UltimateBob on January 11, 2013 at 11:37 AM

It blows my mind that at Sandy Hook unarmed women were the true “first responders”, rushing to the door bare-handed. That’s completely unacceptable, particularly given the fact that whatever legislators who contributed to the creation of this “gun-free” zone would have done their work while being protected by armed guards.

Murf76 on January 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Hannity played the 911 tape from the Atlanta woman that shot an intruder in the face five times when he found their hiding place in the attic. The woman called her husband who was talking to the 911 dispatcher (must have had the woman on a cell phone). The tape has him telling 911 that she’s shooting, shooting, shooting. Then the woman must have said something along the lines of “he’s still moving” to which her husband said- “Well shoot him again.”

I don’t think that armed guards at schools are the only solution but A solution. School districts need to think about just what is necessary (policies, procedures, infrastructure, etc) to keep their pupils safe. No two schools are going to have the same results.

Happy Nomad on January 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM

fwiw, I love this, via Students for Concealed Carry.

Buy Danish on January 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Seems like more government bloat. What happens when the next tragedy occurs on a school bus, or a field trip, or wherever.

can_con on January 11, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Is the conservative solution more government employees? How about we just let the states and school districts decide what is best for themselves?

iwasbornwithit on January 11, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Pic of the Day: ‘Cuz Wearing Obama’s Heart On His Sleeve Is Not Enough For Chris Matthews

lol

Resist We Much on January 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Can I get your address to send you the bill for my eye bleach? LOL

Liam on January 11, 2013 at 11:48 AM

***Alert ****

Live Audio Feed

CDC PRESS CONFERENCE ON FLU EPIDEMIC Live

http://live.reuters.com/Event/CDC_PRESS_CONFERENCE_ON_FLU_EPIDEMIC

canopfor on January 11, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Yeah… and when Clinton was asked how was Hillary’s head, he answered, “Well, she’s no Monica.”

kens on January 11, 2013 at 11:52 AM

obama and Co are feeling flush with embarrassing hypocrisy when asked to explain why armed guards are good enough to protect their own private schooled precious darlings, yet they prohibit the citizenry they govern from having the same level of security for the rest of America’s kids. That’s why they are considering a change in their stance:they can’t credibly defend their original position.

Cavalry on January 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Its a failure of government not to. Want save the money? Disband the ACLU.

Speakup on January 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM

There’s also a number of incidents that didn’t become mass shootings because people on the scene were armed and put an end to it.

gwelf on January 11, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Exactly! I want to see some stats on the number of public shootings that ended at 0, 1 or 2 victims because someone shot the criminal.
For instance – the Colorado Springs New Life Church shooting 5 years ago was stopped by someone with CCW with only 4 shot and only 2 of those dead. So does that one count as a “mass shooting”? If he had not been stopped, the victim count could have been in the hundreds.

Although it would be very hard to study, I would also like to see how many potential mass shootings didn’t happen at all because a good guy stopped the bad guy – whether by shooting or threatening to shoot.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM

And when this comes out as a recommendation, La Pierre and all like thinking politicos should immediately hold news conferences congratualting Mensa Joe for the one and only recommendation that makes sense, has a good chance of being effective, and demonize him for all of the rest of what will likely be recommendations trashing the second amendment.

It’s high time republicans start calling him what he truly is: A barking idiot!

But noooooooooo. Too many Senators still think that because Biden was a long time club member that he gets a pass in the stupidity department. Didn’t work for Hagel though, he didn’t spend enough time in “the club”.

kens on January 11, 2013 at 12:02 PM

The key here is if they want it. I’d oppose this as a mandate, and in theory, I’d oppose federal funding for it at all. Schools fall under local and state jurisdiction for law enforcement, not the federal government.

-
The short answer is this. And current school employees becoming CC w/special training on school invasions is the long answer.

RalphyBoy on January 11, 2013 at 12:06 PM

I think there is a much more effective approach utilizing FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) in an attacker’s mind. States (not school boards) introduce a new employee option.

1) Teachers can VOLUNTARILY and with guaranteed CONFIDENTIALITY sign up for an on campus concealed carry permit.
2) They provide their own weapon and must pass an FBI backgound check.
3) They must pass the CCW permit process
4) They have to pass range target practice reqularly (like police do)
5) They will agree to have their gun CONCEALED and in a LOCKED drawer while at work. Locking trigger guards are optionional.
6) They agree to not reveal their status to anyone and no one else will know they are enrolled in the program. They get no badges, special uniforms, arm bands. Nothing.
7) they can withdraw from the program at any time. Confidentialy give them that freedom.
8) They will be rewarded with a very nice monthly bonus in their check.

and finally,

9) Signs that say “This is a gun-free zone” will be replaced with a sign that says “Warning: One or more or all of the teachers on this campus are armed”. This sign would be in place regardless of if ANY teachers are signed up for the program on that particular school. FUD.

I know there are many teachers that are repelled in horror at the thought. So don’t be involved. Again, it would be voluntary and confidential.

The confidentiality allows a teacher to balance the desire (and spouse’s concern) for self preservation in a crisis with the peer pressure from co workers.

kurtzz3 on January 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM

I like your plan. I second it.

I would go ahead and add the armed guards as the second component.

Do both.

Now, I expect some flames for what I’m going to say:

Like it or not, we do, in America, have infrequent-but-deadly circumstances where people take guns into the schools and shoot defenseless kids and teachers.

As an ex-teacher, the slaughter at Sandy Hook of Miss Soto – unarmed and shielding her students with her body, is unacceptable.

As a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I think that we do have a very real problem. One way to stop the gun-grabbers from going overboard is to actually take real steps toward preventing these massacres. I do not support wild-eyed gun grabs, but I do agree with 0bama that “we can do better.”

As much as I strongly dislike 0bama, on this he is right.

So: Let teachers carry, AND have an armed guard. That improves the situation a lot. Now we can argue whether it should be federal or state, yada yada, but that argument can come after the schools are secured.

Put it in perspective – armed guards are everywhere, defending companies, stockyards, junkyards, etc., etc.

Children are our most precious commodity of all. They should be guarded at least as well as a roll of copper wire in a warehouse.

This whole idea the lefties have been screaming: “Do you want to live in a society like that where there are guns our schools?” – wake up, fools. There ARE guns in our schools every time one of them is shot up. Do you want to protect your illusion of egalitarian safety, or do you ant to protect your kids? Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is not the answer, and you know it, if you will be intellectually honest with yourselves for once.

Either protect the kids, as you demand, or leave the rest of us the hell alone and leave them unprotected.

The time has definitely come for armed guards in the schools, and no one can make a credible argument that it hasn’t, in this cursed time in American history.

cane_loader on January 11, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Can I get your address to send you the bill for my eye bleach? LOL

Liam on January 11, 2013 at 11:48 AM

lol

Resist We Much on January 11, 2013 at 12:18 PM

cane_loader on January 11, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Armed guards? Pulease…

What we need are some adults who will act like adults in times of crisis to be allowed to carry personal arms and use them with prejudice should the need arise.

All this other stuff is just liberal hand-ringing overthink BS. Signs? Should we commission an exploratory committee to examine the efficacy of sign placement, size color, height from floor, distance from bathroon, languages needed, etc…?

It’s infantile gibberish like this that has paralyzed this nation from top to bottom.

Repent and become a can-do American.

ROCnPhilly on January 11, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Every school should have a security plan. How much do you want to wager that very few actually do?

dogsoldier on January 11, 2013 at 12:29 PM

ROCnPhilly on January 11, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Yes!
The real answer to this is just eliminate the “gun free zones”.
That one change allows people – specifically any school staff member – with legal CCW to be able to defend themselves and their students IF the need arises.
We have enough dam laws already that do nothing – and more than enough on the requirements for CCW.
Just delete the worthless “gun free zone” law and the problem will be solved.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2013 at 12:40 PM

kurtzz3 on January 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Just my 2 cents – more complicated than necessary and overly bureaucratic.
Just eliminate the “gun free zones”.
If a school staff member is an employee of the school district and already has a CCW, it means they have already passed multiple background checks, and they’ve already passed NRA and/or local police/sheriff style gun safety training.
Just eliminate the gun free zone and the people with CCW solve the problem on their own.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2013 at 12:52 PM

It’s infantile gibberish like this that has paralyzed this nation from top to bottom.

Repent and become a can-do American.

ROCnPhilly on January 11, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Actually, people like you, ridiculing others’ attempts to solve problems, who have paralyzed the nation.

I’m a very can-do person, thank you, well known for my effective and non-dilatory problem-solving skills.

cane_loader on January 11, 2013 at 12:54 PM

According to the above article, Butler County PA is spending only $230,000 for 22 officers. That’s only $10,454/year for each. Sounds way low to me.

cam2 on January 11, 2013 at 11:18 AM

I am certain that it is much higher than that… I think they missed a zero…

mnjg on January 11, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Happy Nomad on January 11, 2013 at 11:24 AM

I get it…that’s why I stated in a casual conversation atmosphere, but a formal one you use the proper terms…and hold the others to that rule.
An “AR” is not an assault rifle, it’s the initials of the name of a company, and I wish some would say, “Yes, as a matter of fact, they make good hunting weapons in certain situations, why do you think the military uses them, to hunt and kill, they are effective weapons in a variety of areas”.
Lifted from Field and Stream:
DPMS AP4
M16A2/Match Target HBAR rifle
AR-10 chambered in 7.62x51mm (.308 Win.)
Stag-15L Model 4L in 5.56×45 mm (and with a left handed model)
C15 M4 (very light, great for long hunts)
AR–DPMS 5.56 Sportical
Knight’s SR-25 Series.308 Win.( capable of shooting less than 1-inch groups at 100 yards)
R-15 VTR Predator Carbine CS. (.223 or .204)

And more here: They list 245 “AR” style rifles great, beyond good, for hunting, some specialized for small game like the R-15…and all look scary menacing, to the average liberal.

right2bright on January 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM

oops, not 245 listings, but 25 listings…

right2bright on January 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Patronage = power.

kunegetikos on January 11, 2013 at 2:05 PM

If the gun industry can sell into schools like they are Apple and the Dems can soon say, “The republicans want to endanger our children by gutting the school budget, but I want to double the number of government-funded jobs for school guards every year”…

…this is called “coalition building.”

kunegetikos on January 11, 2013 at 2:13 PM

What the Democrats finally realized is two things. First, most big city’s schools have police on site today. I live outside Philly and know many public schools not only have police, but also metal detectors. Second, most cities have mayors that are Democrats. If this fact comes to light (of course the media will never report on it), it will show their hypocracy and could affect funding from the state. Lastly, if the federal government is willing to fund this, why would they shun the free money. Most big cities are overextended/bankrupt from their liberal policies. This will help put money into public employees pockets, I mean help school children.

djaymick on January 11, 2013 at 2:19 PM

White House may back armed guards in schools after all

This is actually not all that surprising. No matter how much they drool at the prospect, they have no public backing for the kind of sweeping regulations they want, not a chance of getting it through Congress, and executive orders are far too limited. After all the hysterics over “Something must be done!!!,” they have nothing left to offer that can even be spun as making a difference except agreeing to a common-sense proposal.

tom on January 11, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Wipe off your chins you pathetic little fluffing trolls. Wipe the other area also.

Bmore on January 11, 2013 at 3:54 PM

I warned about this when it was first mentioned- think TSA in public schools. Another large, unskilled public union, with armed members around our children. This has debacle written all over it.

BKeyser on January 11, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Another insidious attempt by the feds to extend their tentacles into public education. He who controls the purse strings controls the decisions.

georgeofthedesert on January 12, 2013 at 5:00 PM