The City of Angels (along with most of the state of California) is known for having some of the more restrictive gun laws in the country. With that in mind, it should follow that they would have safer streets, public parks, and perhaps most importantly, schools. So how is that working out? A Blue Ribbon Panel on School Safety was convened recently to study the question. The results are in and it turns out that Los Angeles schools really are nowhere near their goals in terms of keeping schools safe. (Daily Caller)

A Blue Ribbon Panel on School Safety, organized by Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, cautioned that Los Angeles schools may not be meeting adequate safety measures, even though the city and state of California has tough gun laws, according to a report released Monday.

The panel was concerned that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) struggled to meet safety measures due to not receiving enough funds to provide quality mental health services to students. California ranked the lowest in the amount of spending put toward each student, according to the report.

Other problems pointed out in the report included inconsistent school safety measures and inefficient collaboration between schools and public organizations.

This is serious business and the city should be given credit for putting some people on the trail of finding viable solutions. They obviously need more money, but show me a school system anywhere in the country that doesn’t, outside of a few gated communities. Some of their other proposals generated by the panel seem promising. They want a single, secure entrance for each school. Of course, that raises the issue of evacuation during an emergency, but with enough training and practice it’s a workable compromise.

They also want to fund mental health professionals to work with students who may be experiencing traumatic stress or other disorders. With luck that will offer the opportunity to detect a potentially violent student before they go completely off the rails and get them some help.

Other suggestions seem far more puzzling. Many of the schools now have metal detectors (thankfully) but the panel describes the procedure as being so “divisive” that they’re unsure what to do. In response, they are launching a pilot program in a limited number of schools where they will only use the detectors ten days per month. If students are worried about being shot, you’d think that they would adapt to metal detectors fairly quickly. Reducing the number of days they are used makes little sense since word will quickly get out to the student body as to which days the detectors are in use.

Guess what didn’t make it onto the list of improvements. Allowing teachers to be armed. There’s also no mention of additional armed security personnel. Of course, the panel did manage to endorse the idea of stricter gun laws. But if they already have some of the tightest gun controls in the nations (which it says right in the report), why are they uncovering so many deficiencies?