Can the US arm its schools, as the NRA suggests?
The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre is speaking currently about the shootings in Connecticut and his central policy suggestion is a massive expansion of government and policing.
He proposes adding security personnel to all of the country’s approximately 100,000 public schools.
I assume that most public schools would require a number of officers to protect facilities from early morning until afterschool activities end.
Some facilities are also large enough that a single officer would likely be ineffectual at protecting hundreds, or thousands, of young students.
So we’re talking about adding between 100,000 and 200,000 people to the government payroll at some level, at the very least.
There would also be administrative personnel and other costs. LaPierre acknowledged that police, school and other local government budgets are already strained.
And he proposed no new Federal taxes to fund the initiative.
So what do In Boxers think? The NRA obviously opposes any new restrictions on the availability of the kind of assault rifle that was used in the Connecticut massacre.
Is this kind of increased security — as an alternative — workable, or affordable? Do you like the idea of a school that has a significant security presence? Do we live in a world where that’s necessary?
Comments welcome.
.png)
.jpg)
Again…
These shootings are not just taking place in schools.
Movie theaters, political campaigns, street corners, malls… does he think we need to have armed guards everywhere? Or do we just ignore those killings and only try to stop the ones in schools?
These people are so out of touch with reality it is frightening.
So the NRA wants to counteract ‘violent culture’ by putting armed guards at schools. Does anyone else think this seems just a bit counter-productive? I spent several years in post-Columbine schools that had constant police presence on-campus, and honestly it didn’t make me feel any safer.
It’s certainly a workable solution if your goal is to either deter attackers or stop them ‘as soon as possible,’ but it is no way, shape, or form affordable by any means. Arming teachers (which is another horrible idea) is probably more affordable than this. This also reeks of ‘pathway to police state.’
I say bring back the assault weapons ban. Nobody needs an AR-15 for personal defense or hunting. Sure, it won’t stop the true criminals who really want to get one and go on a rampage from getting their hands on one, but it will decrease the availability of such weapons for spur-of-the-moment crimes.
“…does he think we need to have armed guards everywhere?”
I fear the NRA’s solution, endorsed by several posters here, is heavily armed citizens everywhere. Time to shop for body armor– there’s going to be a lot of lead in the air.
There are lots of reasons to think this is a really really bad idea.
This isn’t the answer.
At the same time I am not sure that this would really require the “massive expansion of government and policing” that Brain describes?
Many urban schools are already doing this. Most Rural schools would probably just need one “resource” officer. In our district we have had a sheriff at each elementary school every day this week. In my case it is the guy that is usually dropping his son off when I am dropping mine. In this case he is just there instead of being posted in his car on the side of the road. He can leave if he has a call and still be pretty effective for security.
But I agree with Dave and Marty this isn’t the answer to this problem.
“I fear the NRA’s solution, endorsed by several posters here, is heavily armed citizens everywhere. ”
What do you mean? So far everyone says it’s a bad idea??
I think a particularly questionable part of LaPierre’s presentation was the lack of specificity for how this kind of effort would be paid for.
This is a classic moment where conservative values (promoting and preserving America’s gun culture) clashes with conservative values (avoiding larger government and more taxes).
There were several moments when he seemed on the verge of addressing this directly, and he instead spoke about the courage and commitment of law enforcement officers.
But there’s no doubt that this would be hugely expensive.
And we’ve had a troubling track record since 9/11 of approving new security programs — from the build-up to war, to the Homeland Security Department — without paying for them.
I think the NRA’s proposal would have been significantly more credible if they had addressed this challenge.
–Brian, NCPR
There are a lot of reasons to think this is a very workable solution. Cost? All the sudden you people are going to worry about cost? Give me a break, you’ll support spending zillions for every hair brained green scheme or land grab but protecting our kids isn’t worth spending money on? We already have a lot of schools with School Resource Officers, Troopers and Deputies and Police Officers. They are already in place. And if a teacher is worthy of teaching our kids, if they are capable and trustworthy enough, why so we suddenly think they’re all morons incapable of protecting our kids? That’s extremely insulting to our teachers. Having someone at a school actually armed and trained is a lot surer answer to this issue than gun bans. Consider that even when you get your AW ban, which you will no doubt, the next nut job may use a shotgun or any other weapon. How does your ban defend the kids then? Arming teachers or other staff who are willing to do so incurs zero additional cost beyond training and gun safes that I can think of. A much less expensive alternative to hiring 100K police officers.
And Dave, all those other places you mention are in the same boat as the schools that’s true. So you can either hope no one goes nuts with some sort of weapon or you can support some real mental health review and take responsibility for yourself. The courts have ruled the police and government have no responsibility or expectation to protect anyone. It’s your choice and your responsibility.
We live in a new world folks, one that requires extreme measures like guarding schools, many of which are guarded already. Who would have thought just a few years ago that they would see a heavy armed presence in airports, rail stations and at sporting events? Now, it’s commonplace and, I suspect, about to become even more widespread. I think we should use our considerable military resources, already paid for, to help accomplish this. Additionally, the Second Amendment has a militia component tied directly to gun ownership, which is guaranteed to us so that we can protect ourselves. All rights come with responsibilities and I think it is time we exercise our rights AND bear our responsibilities.
Marty said something interesting about people grabbing assault weapons “for spur-of-the-moment crimes.” Much of what I read says that this is not true: these are not spur-of-the-moment crimes but are planned well in advance and may even be spoken about openly. Recent mass murderers probably began their descent into murderous psychosis days, weeks and even months in advance of their crimes. We need to stop spreading the fiction that these are impulsive crimes motivated by access to firearms.
I think most reasonable people recognize that easy access to something makes its use more likely. And restricted access to something makes its use less likely.
Adam Lanza walked into a room in his house, grabbed these weapons, and committed the crime.
If these weapons were illegal to own, and were not in his home, would he have known how to acquire them illegally? Does he seem like the kind of kid who could establish connections with foreign gun traders, drug gangs, or other serious criminals in order to get access to illegal firearms so he could pull off this crime? Not impossible, but much much more unlikely.
A lot of middle and high schools, at least, already have a cop in them, especially in urban and some suburban areas. From what I’ve seen of it, it’s a good program, makes the kids act a bit calmer and the officer can handle small problems that would require sending an officer on patrol otherwise. Plus, it’s usually a more friendly and relaxed atmosphere at school than at other times when you encounter a police officer, gives some kids who would ordinarily see the police as the bad guys a different perspective on things.
If districts and municipalities want to expand it to more schools, I think that would be a good thing. I don’t know how many of them can afford that, though, you’re talking about either hiring more cops or pulling ones who are already hired off of their current beats. If you go with LaPierre’s suggestion and hire part-timers, it costs less, but it’s still going to cost a lot at a time when districts are laying off teachers. Probably billions nationwide. You’d need a commitment of state or federal funding, one that would actually continue funding the program and wouldn’t get passed on to the local level after a few years.
Dave, you don’t have exclusive rights to the use of the word “reasonable”. No matter how often you deny it, there are reaonable people on both sides of this debate and many of them think these are not crimes of passion and would have taken place anyway. There’s quite a bit of scientific evidence for this if you care to find it.
“What do you mean? So far everyone says [heavily armed citizens] is a bad idea??”
“I’m still waiting for someone to explain why arming teachers who choose to be is a bad idea.” Arlo, December 17, 2012 at 9:02 am
They don’t get it. They don’t know how much they have and what they can do without. Sure, I understand ever increasing controls, England, Austraila, Canada. But the NRA dosen’t see the potential theyhad to say we can do without more of X Y or Z and still have enough.
Jeff, the NRA exists to keep arms manufacturers profitable. So having enough now isn’t good enough– they need to sell more and more and more.
Walker, I was talking about this particular string at that time. You can delete the comment now! They have spoken here.
It is a fair questions to consider whether or not the security posted at many urban school has had a positive effect.
Brian makes a good point. But I think that at first maybe we should talk about what may or may not work and then figure out the costs and how we are going to pay for it.
I personally think that an effective ban on assault weapons and certain high capacity magazines (to be really effective) may require a serious buy back program. That is going to be expensive as well.
Also, many rural schools (for example where I went in Saranac Lake) are already considering this option. They were doing it before this particular incident. They may already have one, Brain? In my opinion if this could limit some of the other violence we see in schools (gun violence unrelated to mass shootings) it could be a good idea in some instances. This along with an assault weapons ban and other restrictions if they would be effective. This is where a journalist like Brian comes in. Are these programs effective? It is fair to question the cost. The big versus small government thing and how these guys have some clash of their ideals is interesting. But personally I don’t really care about that sort of stuff right now. At this point in time it is a distraction.
As a parent with kids you don’t care that much about what may be effective 10 or 15 years from now. I think people want to know what could work in the short term and the long term.
“No matter how often you deny it, there are reasonable people on both sides of this debate and many of them think these are not crimes of passion and would have taken place anyway. There’s quite a bit of scientific evidence for this if you care to find it.”
Larry, claiming to be reasonable does not make you so. Implying that easy access to something does not somehow make it more likely to be used… is not just an unreasonable statement, it is an absurdity that goes against what we all experience every single day. This is not a complex or unique premise. We all utilize it. If you don’t want your kid watching TV all day, you restrict access to the remote. If you are on a diet and want to reduce the amount of cookies you eat, you don’t keep cookies in your house.
If you want to reduce the amount of madmen who use assault rifles to kill people, you restrict access to assault rifles.
It is not as complicated as you and those who support the gun culture want try to make it seem.
I’ll agree with you on one point. There is a lot of scientific evidence out there. When the United Kingdom and Australia experienced mass gun murders in the 1990’s – similar in nature to the ones we are plagued with – they quickly enacted tight gun regulations. The United Kingdom has not had a school shooting since, and Australia has not had a mass gun related killing since.
This is a tested, tried, and proven way to protect people from gun mass murders.
It is not a replacement for much stricter assault weapon bans, which I think is what the NRA is scrambling to come up with.
However I would not be against having security at schools. An armed security guard would not have to be that expensive, certainly you could not afford actual police officers but taking a very serious look at defensive action in the case of a mass shooting is not a bad idea. You may come up with a result that shows having an armed guard would be detrimental or not make any difference, maybe other security measures work better? It is an area that should really be studied with outcomes in mind not emotions or politics.
So in the case of legalizing drugs we are all in agreement that much more drugs will be used when they are legalized?
But Dave Australia and Englands crime rates especially violent crime rates are rising despite the bans. In Canada people haven’t been able to effectively own a handgun for years yet shootings with handguns are on the rise. The kid that did this latest killing could have just as easily done it with a 22 and a bunch of magazines that only hold 10 shots. If you want to reduce the amount of madmen that hurt people we need to reduce the number of madmen! I really can’t fathom why no one seems to want to talk about the crazys out there. There are strange people all over the place these days. I don’t think it’s such a good idea to ignore them. And what about all the drugged up violent kids in our schools? I don’t see anyone talking about that at all. I have to agree that a gun ban doesn’t seem like it’s going to be effective.
“I personally think that an effective ban on assault weapons and certain high capacity magazines (to be really effective) may require a serious buy back program. That is going to be expensive as well.”
This is SUCH an important part of the equation.
Not only was this the key component of the Australian success, but it was a major failing of our own attempt at assault weapon legislation.
The Assault Weapon ban of 1994 only banned production of the weapon. Any that were already in circulation – at the time well over a million – were still on the streets, in homes, at gun shows, etc. The latter was a factor in Columbine.
There are substantially more of these weapons out and about now than there were in 1994. Upwards of 4 million, it seems. So just banning manufacturing doesn’t solve the problem. Eventually, I suppose, over a long enough period of time, you begin to dry up the supply of these weapons by not producing any new ones… but what is the shelf life of a modern AR-15? I have to imagine it will last you at least several decades, right?
So a manufacturing ban, without a buyback program, will have only a minor effect in the short to mid term. I for one am not willing to go through another couple of these massacres while we wait for the current crop of assault weapons to breakdown.
Btw, the Australians bought back 643,726 of these weapons at market value. It cost them $400 million.
Having a cop at a school may tamp down the obnoxious behavior a bit, but I’m sceptical about there being any way to tally the success of averting a mass shooting. The fact that an incident didn’t occur, doesn’t imply that there’s a reason for that outcome.
Having more guns around makes it easier for someone to get shot. The whole logic for having armed guards is so they can shoot someone, and law enforcement people sometimes shoot the wrong person.
I have been around guns for my whole life, but the only gun that doesn’t make me nervous is the one I’M holding. A gun in someone else’s possession makes me very uneasy…even when it’s a local policeman…Who knows when that person might snap.
“If you want to reduce the amount of madmen that hurt people we need to reduce the number of madmen!”
How exactly are you going to do that RC? This is like saying instead of restricting access to cigarettes, we should just cure cancer!!
Mental illness is a human condition. It is found in every country, in every society, all throughout history. You are never, ever, going to get rid of mental illness. You are never, ever, going to identify, treat, or cure every possible person who may have a mental illness and may someday, maybe, commit a violent crime with an assault weapon. It is an impossible, unachievable outcome.
Yes, we should be talking about the deficiencies in our mental health system. Totally agree. But doing so will not solve this problem.
Oh my gosh! So having an armed cop right there at a school won’t stop a mad man but expecting him to turn in his gun will? That or he’ll snap and start shooting himself?
Dear lord now I know why I stopped looking at this site.
The NRA needs to be renamed Idiots Incorporated.
This would help so they would not be confused with Murder Incorporated.
All kidding aside, the idea is stupid.
As to arming teachers, would this fools gold idea require teachers to be armed?
Don’t take your guns to school, teach. Leave your guns at home, teach.
Between the Fiscal Cliff and the NRA, I am beginning to wonder if all Republicans have suddenly gone nuts.
Oh, and by the way, since this is the Christmas season, God rest ye merry gentlemen and peace on earth.
Dave punishing other people for a crazy persons actions solves the problem how? Address the problem which is violent people. Do we address drunk driving by taking away the cars? Do we address child pornography by outlawing cameras? Do we address pedophiles by outlawing the Catholic Church and Boy Scouts? Did we address womens rights by outlawing men? Do we address AIDS by outlawing sex? It’s like the saying If guns cause crime then spoons made Rosy Odonell fat.
Enough this is just stupid.
“Do we address drunk driving by taking away the cars?”
We restrict and regulate alcohol.
Look at who profits from LaPierre’s suggestion: the gun industry. Is this really about safety, or is it about exploiting fear in order to make more money?
Chillingly, gun sales go up after tragedies like Sandy Hook, but go down when stricter gun controls are put in place. The implications of this article made my hair stand on end:
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/publishersplatform/more-guns-more-shootings-more-profit
What kind of world do we want to live in? One in which everyone is armed and trained to kill, and civility is maintained by fear rather than any genuine regard for each other, or one in which most people are unarmed and know how to establish healthy relationships, genuinely care about each other, and are well-trained in nonviolent crisis intervention (which, by the way, is usually more effective than violence and results in fewer casualties)?
Rancid –
I think it’s fair to point out that cars, cameras, spoons, the Catholic Church, and the Boy Scouts are different from the devices we’re talking about here.
Assault rifles and some semi-automatic pistols are, as I’ve pointed out before, a type of machine designed to do one thing efficiently: kill people.
We actually do limit access to a lot of machines, devices and technologies that are effective killing agents. Many types of poison, explosives, military hardware, biological agents.
We also carefully regulate things like cars to make them safer, not just for the drivers but for people in other cars and pedestrians.
So the notion that people might want to have a civil discussion about the way that these particular machines might be better managed in our society isn’t quite as nutty as you make out.
–Brian, NCPR
Re: the arming teachers idea–
Gun proponents have a remarkable level of trust in their fellow citizens. Did anyone see the story about the guy who shot the guy behind him in line at a Florida pizza parlor? Claimed stand your ground, naturally.
The crazies (sic) is a different but worthwhile discussion (not to maligne mental illness) but this is about the NRA saying no way Jose. It isn’t only about the shooter but the ability to throw a lot of lead.
The NRA gets support from firearms manufacturers but there are not enough manufacturers who vote. There are only so many employees of Remington Arms in Illion. The owners of firearms.
I am annoyed sufficiently that we have the guards at the courthouse and now we need guards in every school?
I hoped for something better and was disappointed. We don’t need mega clips for civilian hunting. We don’t need flash arresters, less powder and longer barrels would more fully burn the powder. We don’t need quick adjust stocks. A stock adjusted at the range doesn’t need to be re-adjusted in the woods. Even if for a different hunter an allen wrench could change the screws. Grenade launcher? Duct tape and a long stick are easier to use, think potato masher. Bayonet? Practice more, the rabbits and deer run faster than humans.
NRA isn’t leading. It is mooning the country. They stand to get branded.
Leaving aside the “merit” of the idea, it sounds like yet another unfunded mandate to dump on districts.
“Gun proponents have a remarkable level of trust in their fellow citizens.”
And I have the sneaking suspicion that the reason is that they all have a movie playing in their head in which they star as the Citizen Who Saves the Day.
Walker up-thread mentions maybe it’s time to purchase body armor. Actually the NRA is against regulating sales of hollow-point and armor-piercing ‘cop killer’ bullets – in opposition to virtually all law-enforcement agencies in the US. That was why President George H.W. Bush publicly resigned from the organization twenty-some years ago.
NRA then, as now, would rather law-enforcement, children, and everyone else be at increased risk of being fatally shot, than reduce the menu of firearms and ammunition available in the US.
“Gun proponents have a remarkable level of trust in their fellow citizens.”
Walker are you quoting yourself here? On that quote, I have not seen any comments here that indicate thatreally anyone is a gun “opponent” so maybe you mean something else?
So do the armed folks at these urban schools make a difference? Or is it a waste of money?
Here is an example of government needing to do what is supposed to do, i.e. protect us, against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Hiring new armed personnel to protect our children should be a no-brainer for Obama. He wants to increase the federal payroll.
In this case, I say, “go for it”!
Horrible as it was, the Newtown incident is an outlier. There have been no mass murder incidents in K-12 schools since a spate of them after Columbine. I doubt there are likely to more. The guy who was crazy enough to kill little kids is dead. So an armed guard program is unlikely to prevent additional mass murders (I hope).
Having said that, I taught for a while with a deputy sheriff in our school, supplied through a grant program, long abandoned. This guy was great! Similar to Margo’s above, he interacted with kids as he hung out around the school. (He could also be dispatched outside the school if necessary). Most often, the more alienated kids (maybe he had some training, I don’t know). He related to them, and occasionally intervened to avert more serious situations (no shootings, as far as I know, but fights, ect.). Once a kid who had been bullied brought in some small crude home-made bombs. Another student saw these, and the officer intervened, and no one was harmed. Mostly though, I think he did a lot of good just being there. We missed him when the grant ended. An unanticipated positive result that could happen again.
Newt there have been quite a few attempted shooting incidents at public schools since Columbine by both adults and students, most as you state are not “mass” killings but many are one-five person killings; I am not sure when it becomes a mass killing?
Of course these school shooting numbers pale in comparison to the numbers of violent gun deaths in this country though crime and assaults including domestic violence.
“Walker are you quoting yourself here?”
Yes, Paul, I quoted myself in order to extend my earlier comment– there had been intervening comments.
And I don’t see why my use of the phrase “gun proponents” would be inappropriate in the absence of “gun opponents.” A fan of snowmobiles can have a discussion about snowmobiles with someone who doesn’t ride one without the latter necessarily being anti-snowmobile. After all, I used to be a gun owner, and as I have said repeatedly I am not opposed to any and all guns. But I do not think that more guns is the best answer to gun violence– I am not a gun proponent.
There is a poster floating around on Facebook that goes “If a pre-schooler hits another child with a rock, the solution is not for every child to have a rock.”
In inner city high schools,where the worry is that the children will bring handguns to school and shoot at each other (or the teachers) it is helpful to have metal detectors at the entrances and guards – maybe “officer friendly” although its an expensive use of police talent. I dont think you want your principal getting into a shootout with the school hoodlums. Too many innocent bystanders would get shot and the principal would probably get killed.
In the high school my kids went to there was a guard and a metal detector, but I dont remember if the guard was armed. He was an older guy who sat in a chair by the door.
If anyone had a question as to how out of touch the NRA has become, this idiotic proposal should clear that up in an instant. These guys are tone deaf and irrelevant.
Brian, if I could respond to your post directed to Rancid, I’ve pointed out the fallacy in your assertion by providing a listing of some of the other sues for the so called assault weapons. In the end, it doesn’t matter what any of you think a persons “needs”. There is no “need” for free speech, a free press, for freedom of religion, voting rights, search and seizure laws or much “need” for anything more than the barest of food, shelter and clothing. There is no need for health insurance, gay marriage or environmental protections, much less hiking trails, grants for the arts or a myriad of other “necessities”. The Bill of Rights is not about “need”, not one little bit. If the 2nd Amendment can be aborted, then so can the 1st or any other Amendment. And please, enough with the hysterical hyperbole. No one is saying children should be armed, so stop your little hissy fits people.
I’m sure you will all get your way and our rights will be violated, our property confiscated, maybe some of us will be imprisoned or killed when you shred the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And you people wonder why there are petitions circulating to secede from the Union?
Again I don’t think this is a good idea when it comes to curbing mass shootings. But it looks like this is the kind of thing developed in a very blue state, Maryland, as opposed to just an insane NRA idea as suggested my many folks today:
Here is a link to info on the Baltimore City School Police Force:
http://www.baltimorecityschools.org/Page/472
Gun ownership is not an unfettered right. It has never been an absolute right. Even in the 1700s, there was regulation of guns. Pistol permits have existed since the early 20th century at least. Machine guns were banned in the 1930s. Do I need to go on? The courts and the law have never, ever held that the Second Amendment means that anyone can own any kind of gun, with whatever features they want to and however many bullets they want, and carry it wherever they want to. It’s fine to oppose a renewed “assault weapons” ban, but you’re talking like limiting a magazine to only 10 bullets is the same thing as saying someone can’t speak freely or can’t practice their religion.
“If the 2nd Amendment can be aborted, then so can the 1st or any other Amendment. And please, enough with the hysterical hyperbole.”
Arlo, talk about hyperbole! The 2nd Amendment is about arming the people for well-regulated militias; it has never been “aborted” by reasonable limitations on some types of arms. [Like Marlo said.]
Arlo – the first amendment guarantees free speech among other things but your cant yell fire in a theater, or incite to riot. There are recognized limits to all our “rights”. The right to assembly is limited by the need to get a permit. etc.
And yes, Arlo, us people wonder why people who claim immense patriotism are ready to secede from the Union over the possibility that limits will be placed on ownership of some types of weapons. You’d think that we were the United States of Gun Owners, not the U.S. of A.
As for the police in schools idea, it’s one of those ideas that sounds like it can work well in a large school and not be a huge expense. But you can just see it coming down as an unfunded mandate on small elementary schools where it would amount to a substantial increase to an already strained school budget. Charming idea– lay off a teacher to hire a cop.