Is an officer in every school wise, or even possible?
LaPierre’s call was echoed by a group that may never have previously agreed with him on anything. Even before he spoke, left-wing activist group MoveOn.org was circulating a petition for federal lawmakers to implement the same idea following the Dec. 14 attack, in which 20 first-graders and six adults were gunned down in an elementary school in an affluent and bucolic New England town an hour north of New York.
Law enforcement experts are divided on the idea, with some saying no price is too high in the wake of the Connecticut horror and others saying it would be a rash overreaction and that the decision to deploy police officers is best left to local professionals.
There are about 100,000 public schools in the U.S. Assuming an average annual salary of $50,000 for each police officer, the cost of stationing a cop in every school would be somewhere around $5 billion. That wouldn’t include pension and benefits, but it also would not take into account schools that already host police officers or jurisdictions where schools might be covered with no additional hiring.
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
Perhaps we could test the theory using banks and shopping malls.
greggriffith on December 22, 2012 at 8:54 AM
Maybe do away with public funding for operas, art exhibits, symphonies, & the like.
I don’t know.
Priorities!
itsnotaboutme on December 22, 2012 at 8:58 AM
In my wife’s home country of the Philippines, every bank, mall, & even every busy restaurant has armed guards, & the public is grateful for them.
If a poor nation like the Philippines can afford them, I’m sure South Brunswick can find a way to.
itsnotaboutme on December 22, 2012 at 9:01 AM
It was a stupid suggestion by the NRA, but it is a safer PR retreat than recommending CCW’s in abolished “gun-free” zones. Liberals attack the idea of armed law-abiding citizens all day long, but it’s harder argument to make against armed cops protecting kids.
The Count on December 22, 2012 at 9:03 AM
So about 100k per school.
Fire one principle or member of the school board and hire a cop.
Easy peasy.
LincolntheHun on December 22, 2012 at 9:03 AM
will they have a union?
nathor on December 22, 2012 at 9:12 AM
Hey, let’s make gun-free zones for banks, liquor stores, and shopping malls. That should stop the crime.
petefrt on December 22, 2012 at 9:13 AM
High schools can be exempted since football players can simply tackle the shooters.
rogerb on December 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM
if only we didn’t waste that money on cash for clunkers……It’s amazing liberals have no problem finding funding for things likesex education in schools but can’t seem to find the funds to protect the children.
the fact of the matter is that since the federal government made school zones gun free zones it is thier responsibility to see those zones are protected. You can not disarm the citizens and make it illegal for them to protect themselves without taking the responsibility for their protection.
Personally I would rather see every teacher armed. Give them a 5% bonus for “combat pay” if they decided to get their CC permit and training.
v
unseen on December 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM
Yes, there’s so much bloat in most school budgets that finding 50K/yr should be no problem. It’s just a matter of priorities.
But first and foremost, it’s NOT for the federal gubmint to do. It’s a matter for state and local governments. The feds should stay the hell out of it.
petefrt on December 22, 2012 at 9:17 AM
We had armed cops in schools under Bill Clinton. When funding dropped, our low paid school security guards carried baseball bats at the inner city high school where I worked. Bring back the police!
debg on December 22, 2012 at 9:20 AM
In Florida, there is already resouce police officer in each middle and high school. They are normally paid for by the school district and they can come from either the county sheriff or city police. We are talking about adding them to elementary schools.
I approve of this action.
BigGator5 on December 22, 2012 at 9:21 AM
Why do we even need to pay? I’m certain there’s enough retired police and/or military veterans in each district to volunteer once a week to sit around at a school waiting for an occasion such as this.
And it should be handled at the lowest level possible. Jeebus, it’s not rocket science!
JeffWeimer on December 22, 2012 at 9:22 AM
I haven’t heard a more effective idea. I think each school district should decide for themselves what they need and how to pay for it. Maybe set up a volunteer system through the PTA and have parents get training through the NRA since they offered to do it for free. I had to get two clearances just to be able to go on a field trip or help with a Christmas party.
Night Owl on December 22, 2012 at 9:23 AM
And this is a fine idea as well. Just don’t make a FEDERAL case of it!
JeffWeimer on December 22, 2012 at 9:24 AM
Of course.
The local mall has state troopers on the premises at all times. AP said on another thread that armed guards in schools might make the kids feel less safe.
How does having dead classmates in the halls make children feel?
“The guard is here to protect us Billy.”
“Oh.”
End of story.
If the guard is dressed like a teacher, he probably won’t be the first one shot because the shooter won’t know he’s an armed guard. That’s the whole point of concealed carry.
Best option: arm the teachers that want to be armed, and train them in combat tactics. “It’s for the children.” How can a lib argue against that?
Rahmturd’s “The answer is not more guns in schools” would be laughable were the results of that deranged view not so tragically and obviously fatal.
Akzed on December 22, 2012 at 9:26 AM
Yeah, in his area a shooter would probably be more worried about how many students were carrying a concealed weapon.
Night Owl on December 22, 2012 at 9:32 AM
There’s a janitor in every school.
Does that cost more or less.
Maybe if government supported lap-dances were cut back, we could afford school security.
vityas on December 22, 2012 at 9:32 AM
Armed guards, yes. Armed police? The costs are somewhat different.
Every school should have someone responsible for security that actually like, y’know, knows security. DUH!
But let’s have some dumbass admin types who think they are effing geniuses work out security! That ought to be a… wait. it already has been… several tragedies.
dogsoldier on December 22, 2012 at 9:48 AM
Increase class sizes a bit and do with one teacher less in each school. Use the savings to pay for the armed guard.
CW on December 22, 2012 at 9:51 AM
It seems now the real concern is just optics, or something?
Certainly not about safety or volunteerism.
/.
CaveatEmpty on December 22, 2012 at 9:53 AM
Well actually in the case you cite it is simply about Marine rules.
CW on December 22, 2012 at 9:56 AM
After two years and 10 billion dollars people would say “our schools are safe, we need the money for something else,” and we’ll be back where started, short 10 billion dollars, and an unfunded pension for those guards.
This would be like having the TSA for schools, and I don’t know about you, but I’m not paying for that.
RINOs are people too on December 22, 2012 at 10:09 AM
How about trained dogs patrolling the schools? Does anyone remember “The Doberman Gang”?
RINOs are people too on December 22, 2012 at 10:12 AM
The only thing worse than liberal progressives are Big Government Conservatives! $5,000,000,000.00 here, 5,000,000.000.00 there, soon we’re talking real money.
Schools should have the choice to spend $600 plus training for one of their staff. If they don’t, parents should have the choice to change schools. It’s no more difficult than that.
elfman on December 22, 2012 at 10:28 AM
Well, it’s certainly possible, there is no question about that. I don’t know why that is even asked. Whether it is wise or not is a question needs to be divided, I think into to parts, is it wise to put armed officers in schools or is it better to arm school employees. Then for each it is a question of balancing all the issues associated with them.
Without going into all the issues and doing the balancing here in this comment, which would mostly be assessment of hypotheticals, actual results are the best indicator. We already have some via Florida and Utah, and states should be free of federal restrictions for experimenting and each state, and their leaders can be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and revise their methods according to what is found to work.
One thought. Having individuals in schools which are armed and trained to prevent/mitigate attacks will be tested. Has there been a single case of a school attack wherein the attacker was not intimately associated with the school in some way? It’s highly unimaginable that, with a partial implementation ‘armed schools’ that attacker is going to go to a gun free school across town or in an another adjacent school district. if the potential/wannabe killer in question nears the threshold to conceive/act he’ll either do so or not at that school in question whether it is armed or not. With time, results will show differences between gun -free and armed school, and we also see results in deterrence, prevention and mitigation. As such the policies with the best results, including as pertains to cost, will be adopted across the board.
Dusty on December 22, 2012 at 10:34 AM
The difference is that the cost of security for banks and retail outlets is borne by shareholders and customers. For schools, it would be borne by taxpayers…
JohnGalt23 on December 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM
How much did it cost to hand out Kevin “The Safe School Czar” Jennings’ pamphlets on how to have sex to every grammar school kid?
I think most of us know the truth. They don’t care about safe schools. If they did, it would have happened already.
vityas on December 22, 2012 at 10:40 AM
That’s my biggest concern. The last things I want kids indoctrinated in is the expectation of armed LEO’s in every facet of their life. That is the route that leads to police states.
However, sticking with the airport analogy… why couldn’t we have the school version of the air marshal program. Non-uniformed, armed LEO’s randomly stationed at various schools, from time to time. Not a full time presence, but enough of one to deter would-be mass killers. I doubt it would have stopped Newtown… he was determined to shoot up that school, regardless of the risks. But it might well have caused other, more risk-averse killers.
JohnGalt23 on December 22, 2012 at 10:43 AM
… to think twice.
JohnGalt23 on December 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM
The police can’t prevent killings in cities, so why should we think they can prevent killings in schools?
The killers at Columbine came in through the cafeteria door, not the front door. How many security people would be needed to secure the building at school opening when hundreds of students, faculty, administration, staff, deliveries, etc are showing up? What about the kids outside for gym class or the band practicing for the half-time show? The baseball team or the football team practicing until 4 or 5 pm?
My HS had about 2,000 students and several entrances. How many cops to protect the school would it take? Probably 4 at school open and close, 2 during the day, and 2 more that worked 2nd shift. One cop wouldn’t be that much of a deterrent and could easily be outgunned by 2 or 3 shooters (see Columbine). Plus one cop can’t cover a large school and grounds by himself.
So the argument for putting A policeman in every school is all talk and no hat. To provide adequate security at schools would require metal detectors, strict security procedures, locked doors, bars on windows, no outside gym classes, and probably an average of 3 police per school. Take whatever cost estimate Biden comes up with and multiply by 5.
And that doesn’t guarantee to prevent an attack – just to end it a little quicker.
huckleberryfriend on December 22, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Wise is debatable, though not because of the nimrods who’re confusing specific deterrent to mass murders with actual government tyranny. Which is rather odd since examples of the latter are abounding in the Obama administration.
Possible? Darn right it is. As was pointed out, if the freaking Philippines can afford it, we sure as hell can. Just not with 50% of the populace wanting free stuff and the majority of two major people-groups having allied themselves to the Democrats for that reason.
MelonCollie on December 22, 2012 at 10:57 AM
I agree with your points. Towns could work on reducing the police response time. If the CNN report of a 20 minute police response for Sandy Hook is correct, it’s a big problem. Fixing that would seem cheaper and provide a better coordinated way to counter-act future killers.
dedalus on December 22, 2012 at 11:11 AM
In The City of Riverside in Southern California there has been a Policeman and Police car at every high school in the area for years. No big deal.
kh6zv9 on December 22, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Wish the networks would interview this guy.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
warren on December 22, 2012 at 11:15 AM
[huckleberryfriend on December 22, 2012 at 10:51 AM]
If, as you say, all the precautions you suggest won’t guarantee to prevent an attack but just end it a little quicker, all the precautions are still inadequate. So, the issue is not guaranteeing to prevent an attack, but to end it a little quicker.
Now we can take all your precautions and reasonable assess it’s “end it a little quicker” probability. Let me just ballbark:
Barred windows – 0.5%
Locked doors – 1%
Locked doors with bullet-resistant glass – 4%
No outside gym – least % of other precautions
Strict security procedures – +5%
Armed guard – 35%
Additional guards +10%/EA lowering by X%/each addn’l guard.
See the point? Bottom line is, the attacker, as you note, will seek the weakest point and the only precaution on the list that can move to the weakest point is the precaution with the gun.
When you are talking about cost, why add precautions that have a negligible to irrelevant value to them, especially if the cost to do so is high. Locks on doors? Cheap. Bars on windows? High.
Dusty on December 22, 2012 at 11:20 AM
[Dusty on December 22, 2012 at 11:20 AM]
I see my formatting and typo may make it look like I was using minus signs but I wasn’t. Think of them as semicolons and that I missed putting one in on additional guards.
Dusty on December 22, 2012 at 11:23 AM
I wish Congress would pass the Larry Correia Will Establish School Safety Programs Act.
Dusty on December 22, 2012 at 11:31 AM
Cost of a gun invited into a school accidentally kiling or injuring a student or employee? Millions.
What nobody has considerd is the fact that with every gun carried inside a school there is a small chance, no matter how infinitesimal, that the person or the gun on his person can be used for the wrong purpose.
For the number of unintended killings to be an order of magnitude leass than the number of students that could possibly be saved from a Sandy Hook-type shooting, each school would have to be sure that a gun could be carried for one million years without an associated unintentional death.
The math: 130,000 k-12 schools, public and private, in the US. There were 1.7 Million school years between Columbine and Sandy Hook. At one incident for every one million school years, that’s 1-2 deaths deaths by the time of SandyHook, if all schools had armed gurds/teachers/police since Columbine.
I think to expect only one such incident in 1 million years is ludicrous. Try one in ten thousand: that’s one unintended shooting in one hunderd years in a district with 100 schools. Still avery small probability. But that puts the death toll at 170 due to guns brought into the schools for safety between Columbine and Sandy Hook.
shuzilla on December 22, 2012 at 11:32 AM
[shuzilla on December 22, 2012 at 11:32 AM]
Well, I certainly understand your argument and it’s worthwhile to consider that aspect. I do understand that Utah has had armed guards for a while. I’ve read Florida has, too. It would be interesting to see the results compared to your givens.
Prior to that, I’d want to confirm that your method is sound and the data in is appropriate. For example, and I’m saying this is an accurate parallel, the CDC lists 2010 unintentional firearms deaths at 606 per 308 million people years. In economic circles, I’ve seen 90,000,000 households used and in gun discussions I’ve seen 38% of households have guns, so that would be 34.2 million household years.
I don’t know if that data is more sound or less sound but by your method in 10,000 years an armed household would produce 0.117 deaths. The same number of homes as schools (that you use, Yglesias uses 98k from which the $5B min cost derives) — 130,000 would put the number of deaths at 23,035 every 10,000 years or 2.3 per year and 29 for your period of Columbine to Sandy Hill. That’s compared to your 170. How many were killed between Columbine and Sandy Hill?
I think we need to evaluate your method and input much more closely and I think we also need to consider whether the level of care in which accidental handling leads to an unintended access and use of one especially in your development of how often it happens based on using huge numbers. It seems to me there is a problem choosing a reasonable number of incidents while dealing with millions and tens of thousands, just because it seems reasonable to choose at least the number 1 instead of using a fraction.
Dusty on December 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM
By that date range, there have been a little over 50,000 school years per mass slaughter death.
Assuming 10% of schools already have armed security, your risk assumptions would have us already seeing 1-2 students being killed by security. Has that ever happened? Therefore, I think that 1 death in several million school years is more likely.
elfman on December 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM
13 years since Columbine x 130,000 k-12 schools (public and private – have to arm them all) = 1.69 Million school years from Columbine to Sandy Hook.
That 10% having armed security is not teachers being armed, as many have proposed, but they are also going to be most of the dangerous schools, where the threat of violence comes not from a lone gunman but from gang violence, etc. So if 10% had guns on premises as you suggest, then at one incident per million years that would produce an expected 0.17 unintended deaths. You’d need several centuries of data to reliably ascertain the death rate.
If the risk of having guns in school is acceptable, then the risk of having none in school to face a Sandy-Hook-type killer should be even more acceptable because the risk to students and faculty is smaller. Having a teacher draw down on a mass murderer feels good, but aren’t liberals the ones concerned with feelings, and conservatives with numbers and results?
shuzilla on December 22, 2012 at 5:36 PM
I’m sorry, that’s not making sense to me. In my last, I suggested that “1 death in several million school years is more likely”, not 1 in a million. Sandy Hill alone produced 1.3 deaths per year as I recall, much less than the 0.17 (based on 1 in a million) that you suggest is a reason not to allow administrators to be armed. I don’t see how that’s supports your suggestion that conservatives are abandoning results for feelings. The results are there almost 10 fold.
elfman on December 23, 2012 at 9:08 AM