NRA's Newtown solution: Armed guards in schools


#1

NRA’s Newtown solution: Armed guards in schools - Anna Palmer and Andrew Restuccia - POLITICO.com

Not the response I was hoping for.


#2

Wayne LaPierre talked about every possible issue that contributes to such shootings except the obvious one: The breakdown of morality in our country.


#3

Smart move by Wayne…Guess who initiated a $60 M program for armed guards in schools?

Clinton Pledges Funds to Add Police to Schools
Violence: President also earmarks money for child-counseling programs. GOP critics say youth problems should be addressed at home.
April 16, 2000|LAWRENCE L. KNUTSON | ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — Marking the first anniversary of the shooting deaths at Columbine High School, President Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants Saturday to place more police officers in schools and help even the youngest kids cope with their problems.

“In our national struggle against youth violence we must not fail our children; our future depends on it,” the president said in his weekly radio address.

Clinton announced that he and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton will host a White House conference on teenagers on May 2 to “talk through the challenges of raising responsible children.”

Parents, teens, teachers, youth workers and others will discuss research that indicates the preteen years set patterns for behavior and success in adulthood. Other subjects will include the risks, challenges and anxieties faced by young people today and what can be done to avoid dangerous or risky behavior.

“We need to talk about safety and security in every house in America,” Clinton said.

Republican critics said the federal government is a clumsy middleman in trying to cope with problems that should be addressed locally. They cast doubt on whether the teen conference would accomplish anything, accused Clinton of ignoring media violence and said he should support stiff jail sentences for anyone carrying a firearm in a violent or drug-related crime.

Clinton Pledges Funds to Add Police to Schools - Los Angeles Times


#4

Absolutely the dumbest idea, and statement, they could have produced. They were doing better holding their silence.

With just under 99,000 schools in the USA, it’d run about $1.5-2.0 billion to place a cop in every school, for a problem that is most noteworthy for its rareness of occurrence. Last I checked, we’re well beyond being broke, and the very kids purportedly “protected” already “owe” the federal government over $50,000 each.

And, nary a mention from Wayne the Senile, that the laws of this fine nation prevent the mothers of such children from committing them to mental institutions, even if they fervently desire to do so for very valid reasons.


#5

Agree Sway…tone deaf. Holding his tongue was a better approach… and now he will be on the Sunday talkies adding fuel to the fire. When nothing you do or say will do anything except excaberate the situation…silence is golden.


#6

I agree they shouldnt have said anything but they were getting hammered even worse for staying silent. In this twitter instant reaction media not making a statement gets you more press and criticism than making a dumb statement.


#7

[quote=“Sway, post:4, topic:37577”]
Absolutely the dumbest idea, and statement, they could have produced. They were doing better holding their silence.

With just under 99,000 schools in the USA, it’d run about $1.5-2.0 billion to place a cop in every school, for a problem that is most noteworthy for its rareness of occurrence. Last I checked, we’re well beyond being broke, and the very kids purportedly “protected” already “owe” the federal government over $50,000 each.

And, nary a mention from Wayne the Senile, that the laws of this fine nation prevent the mothers of such children from committing them to mental institutions, even if they fervently desire to do so for very valid reasons.
[/quote]Just had this conversation with a friend today. She said it would make her feel safe, and it’s worth it to spend the money. The trend is already going the right way. Columbine happened during the “assault weapon” ban. It did nothing to stop it. Just frustrating. Then we get NRA whining about video games and movies. We’re going to get gun bans and cops in every school at a time that crime and particularly killing is declining in the United States. Talk about H.L. Mencken’s hobgoblins. Yeesh.

Then she proceeded to tell me how awesome the TSA is :frowning:


#8

That is true unless, the silent party is a Democat/Liberal/commie after one of their usually stupid or EVIL ideas plays out as predicted by Conservatives. In that case, silence is always golden.


#9

I’m in favor of putting armed protection in schools that want it.
I am not, however, in favor of the federal government getting anywhere near running it.


#10

An Old Country Doctor’s Thoughts on Guns and Maniacs in School

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On December 16, 2012 @ 1:23 pm In The Point

The following is a letter that I received by email that I thought was worth sharing with everyone. It’s a reminder of how many of our problems come from America no longer being what it used to be.

Please allow a word from an old country doc, now “retarded” because of all the government interference.
As a child back on the farm (in the 1930′s) I attended a one-room school that taught to the 8th grade. We hunted for food and furs, and during season you would always find guns stacked in the cloak room. Some of us hunted or ran trap lines on the way home. That was no big deal, and no one worried about any of us because of gun violence. Oh! We did have to unload the guns before we stacked them! Occasionally some boys might put down their guns and fight, then pick up their guns and go on hunting. One thing you did NOT find in the school was anyone who was considered capable of such violence. Those kids were sent off to an asylum.

Then came the 60′s and things began to change. We all had to be treated “the same” and no one could be “put away” unless there was a court order for criminal insanity. Before you had time to blink, the entire landscape changed. There were “homeless” people everywhere and gun violence became a problem along with it.

Certainly there are some homeless people who are there to take advantage of folks, but many are incompetent, mindless, helpless and – all too often – dangerous.

I could go on, but you get the idea, I’m sure.

Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year!

Wayne Smith, M.D. Heber Springs, Arkansas

Meanwhile as Ruth King reminds us, the facilities for treating problems like these existed and were deliberately shut down.

Newtown is the home of Fairfield State Hospital, which was a psychiatric hospital in Newtown, Connecticut, which operated from 1931 until 1995. At its peak the hospital housed over 4,000 patients. It is set on beautiful and rolling hills, and the patients were housed in lovely and well maintained old brick buildings which rivaled any of the famous Ivy League campuses. It was closed during the de institutionalization movement which left so many of America’s mentally ill homeless and in the streets of America.

Read “Madness in the Streets : How Psychiatry and the Law Abandoned the Mentally Ill by Rael Jean Isaac and Virginia C. Armat (Aug 1, 2000).”


#11

[quote=“2cent, post:9, topic:37577”]
I’m in favor of putting armed protection in schools that want it.
I am not, however, in favor of the federal government getting anywhere near running it.
[/quote]NRA says to hell with the Constitution – Tenth Amendment Center Blog


#12

Thanks for the link. I think I like this Mike Maharrey. His reaction mirrored mine to a ‘T’.

Not to put words in people’s mouths, but it seems the nay-sayers here are saying “nay” for the wrong reasons. True, we don’t need another federal expense, but that’s not, imo, the #1 reason not to involve the Feds.

For starters, the Feds have no business running anything in our schools. How many years have we been fighting tooth and nail to get them out? And now La Pierre is inviting yet more Fed involvement? Is he nuts?
Worse, he thinks it’s dandy for this new department to be run by Homeland Security??!! Aren’t people wary enough of that dept. w/o handing them more control? - over our children, no less?
And here I thought Conservatives were supposed to want to shrink the size of Goverment; not expand it.

Why he threw in that bit of questioning the morals of the media/entertainment industry is beyond me because he didn’t say a word about how those violent movies & video games give guns a bad name - only that they’re responsible for the violence in this country. (He said it, not me.) IOW, it had nothing to w/the NRA. Perhaps he was trying to deflect blame away from guns by placing it on the media industry. IAC, it didn’t belong in the speech. Making himself sound doubly foolish was to turn around and whine that the media doesn’t treat the NRA fairly or w/respect.
What a nimrod.

No wonder he’s not all that popular w/NRA members. (And this is far from the first time I’ve heard/read of him embracing Big Gov. Frankly, he always struck me as a power-climber, himself.)

A point I left out about DHS running this ‘program.’ It gives the government the power to ALLOW us our 2nd Amendment rights, rather than protect them. In which case, they can also take them away. Which would lead to, as Maharray put it, "goons walking the halls of our schools, rather than individuals."
BAD MOVE!

Easy answer? Simply UN-declare schools "Gun-Free Zones."
Goal accomplished.


#13

HEY FOLKS! You are sounding like Libs now. Suggest you READ and follow the link in my post #3 above.

You are acting like Wayne dreamed this up on his own and far from it, you may not agree with the solution, but Wayne is late to the party by many, many years…

I am noticing a real trend on here by ALL that if folks do not agree and the statement is supported with fact, then its simply ignored and the debate rages on. I have seen a lot of changes in this forum since I have been here and rise in Denial and ignore truth and reality…[LEFT][/LEFT]


#14

From the Do-As-I-Say, I-Got-Mine-But-You-Can’t-Have-Yours, Limousine-Liberal Hypocrisy Corner:

Gregory Mocks LaPierre for Proposing Armed Guards, but Sends Kids to High-Security School
4:58 PM, Dec 23, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
WeeklyStandard.com

David Gregory mocked the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre for proposing that armed guards be at every school in America. But the NBC host seems to have no problem with armed guards protecting his kids everyday where they attend school in Washington, D.C.

“You proposed armed guards in school. We’ll talk about that in some detail in a moment. You confronted the news media. You blamed Hollywood and the gaming industry. But never once did you concede that guns could actually be part of the problem. Is that a meaningful contribution, Mr. LaPierre, or a dodge?,” asked Gregory.

The NBC host would go on the rest of the segment to suggest that armed guards might not be effective in preventing mass murders at school. Which is perhaps an interesting theoretical argument.

But when it comes to Gregory’s own kids, however, they are secured every school day by armed guards.

The Gregory children go to school with the children of President Barack Obama, according to the Washington Post. That school is the co-ed Quaker school Sidwell Friends.

According to a scan of the school’s online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed.

As the article points out, with the Obama children there, the school also has (presumably, armed) Secret Service agents on campus. Maybe David Gregory’s comment might be a little more credible had he moved his kids to an ordinary guns-free school campus and broadcast both the address of the campus and the fact that it’s guns-free … you know, practice what he preaches … use his kids’ lives in support of his political punditry the way he’s using the deaths of those Newtown, CN children’s deaths to push his political agenda!


#15

It is unfortunate that one must oppose all armed guards in schools on nothing more than practical political grounds, for there was a Deputy Sheriff at Columbine and he certainly limited the carnage until such time as the SWAT team arrived.

While I believe that local school boards and communities are free to institute any policy they desire, including police and armed guards, that is hardly the discussion that is going on, and Mr LaPierre did nothing to address it, and may even have well exacerbated it.

The way these things are done, over the last half century, is that the federal government creates funding for specific programs of their design, and it makes that funding available to states and communities which institute such programs that fully comply with all of the federal standards for programs the federal government has no power to regulate in any way. This is how we got a 55 mph speed limit, a national seat belt law, funding for seat belt enforcement zones…which can be used for no other purpose and is “use it or lose it” in nature, as well as the national education standards movement.

And then, it occurs to me…having just left the consolidated poofter rights thread, can an “equal protection” argument be far off mandating those programs because the denial of implementing them denies school kids equal protection for a safe education experience? Probably.


#16

I did read it. Even remember when it was going on. Was as impressed with the idea then as I am now. What, I’m somehow supposed to be more impressed with a bad idea that Liberals started just because the Pres. of the NRA re-introduces that same, bad idea?

The only thing I agreed with then is the same thing I agree with now:

Republican critics said the federal government is a clumsy middleman in trying to cope with problems that should be addressed locally. They cast doubt on whether the teen conference would accomplish anything, accused Clinton of ignoring media violence and said he should support stiff jail sentences for anyone carrying a firearm in a violent or drug-related crime.

The emboldened part, wholeheartedly; the rest was simply laughable.

Please note the disparity in these next 2 paragraphs:

Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.

"Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation.

Which is it?
And where are they today? I haven’t heard one way or the other. If they’re still there, (whichever number), great, (sort of.) But one would think that those much safer schools would’ve been brought to our attention here recently if they were.

I am noticing a real trend on here by ALL that if folks do not agree and the statement is supported with fact, then its simply ignored and the debate rages on. I have seen a lot of changes in this forum since I have been here and rise in Denial and ignore truth and reality…[LEFT][/LEFT]

What “statement of fact” has been ignored here? Really; I don’t know what you’re referring to. Please clarify?

As I stated earlier, I’m entirely in favor of schools having armed protection, if they so choose, and lean strongly in hoping they would.
If there’s anything La Pierre got right, it’s that the only thing that stops a bad guy w/a gun is a good guy w/a gun.

Nothing Liberal about that. And there’s nothing Liberal about not wanting the federal government to have anything to do with it.

Quite the opposite, as matter of fact.


#17

I would be in favor of it only if none of the money came from taxes. There are on average about 3 deaths a year from school shootings, it would cost about 4 billion a year to put just 1 armed guard in every school (some are so big more than 1 would be needed) thats over 1 billion per life saved assuming it would prevent every school shooting death (it wouldnt). Im not trying to trivialize the life of a child but thats not cost effective, not even close. If a school takes up private donations for their guard, great, but none of it should be coming from govt money.


#18

Entirely agree.
Oops…almost.
While I prefer it to be entirely volunteer, if a school district wishes to put forth a referendom for a tax that solely contributes to that effort, have at it.
–Which wouldn’t immediately transfer into the district saying they were is disfavor of their school having armed protection; just that they weren’t willing to pay for it via a tax.

However, by, “armed protection”, I wasn’t necessarily referring to hiring “armed guards.” That sounds extreme to me.

I was referring to everyday citizens, teachers, administrators, clerical workers, janitors…whomever may you, being “allowed”, (did I just say that?!) to have the protection necessary on them, should it BE needed.

The very idea of “armed guards stalking the halls” is repellent to me.


#19

Even in a referendum youre still wasting tax payer money. If the majority of the people want it let them donate to the school but dont force people to waste money. This would be exactly the type of thing the representatives can protect the people from the tyranny of the majority. Especially if special interest groups like the NRA use their weight to help pass them.

However, by, “armed protection”, I wasn’t necessarily referring to hiring “armed guards.” That sounds extreme to me.

I was referring to everyday citizens, teachers, administrators, clerical workers, janitors…whomever may you, being “allowed”, (did I just say that?!) to have the protection necessary on them, should it BE needed.

The very idea of “armed guards stalking the halls” is repellent to me.

Im not sure how much teachers being armed would help. They would probably only be able to protect their class room and since most of the shootings are premeditated the shooters would probably have an idea of which teachers were armed and avoid those rooms. Also Im not sure how many teachers would do it. There are a lot of liberal teachers that would just stay away from guns altogether and then there is a large segment of teachers that just wouldnt have the time for all the certification and training. In my high school most of the teachers were also coaches and spent a good 40 extra hours each week with coaching duties. Also it would really only take 1 incident out of the 3.3 million teachers, whether an accidental shooting or a student taking a teachers gun, to nullify any good that arming them does.


#20

If we’re talking about concealed carry, it won’t be obvious who’s packing and who isn’t.