Once again, there has been another tragic shooting, and once again politicians are all over the media calling for stricter gun controls. Yet, in September 2004, Congress let the assault weapons ban expire. We Americans are fond of our Second Amendment rights, and politicians simply don’t have the courage to pass meaningful gun control legislation.
Let’s face it, true gun control in this nation isn’t happening anytime soon; it’s too complicated. Even if an assault-weapons ban was reinstated today, it’s unlikely that our nation’s schools would be markedly safer.
It’s estimated by Michael Roberts, a reporter with the Denver Post, that since that fateful day at Columbine High School in 1999, there have been 179 major school shooting incidents. I don’t know how many dead and wounded, but one is too many. There are those who blame bullies, the mentally ill and the National Rifle Association.
Perhaps the real blame rests with a nation that has become complacent with a culture of violence? I don’t know. No one knows.
The bigger question is: How do we protect our children now, in the aftermath of the deadliest school shooting ever? I propose that Congress pass what could be called the Sandy Hook School Safety Act.
This act would be titled such, so we never forget this tragic event. Enough is enough; it’s time for our nation to get serious about school safety. There are 98,817 public schools in the U.S., and most are considered “soft” targets with no security beyond a locked door.
This proposed act would provide for what would be highly trained federal school safety officers in every public school in this nation. These officers would work for a Directorate of School Safety under the auspices of Homeland Security.
The Directorate would be fully funded by a dedicated federal tax on gun and ammunition sales. By some estimates the firearm industry is worth $4.1 billion, so I suspect that such a tax could generate sufficient funds to operate. Just like the cigarette tax, the firearms and ammunition tax would be used to mitigate these products’ ill effects on society.
The Directorate of School Safety would also handle threats of violence, bullying, physical plant security and response protocols to acts of terror. Disturbed individuals are not the sole threat to our schools. If al-Qaida really wanted to strike terror in the hearts of all Americans it would simply stage multiple attacks on elementary schools simultaneously. Such an event would have a “shock-and-awe” effect of sufficient magnitude to effectively cripple this great nation.
The federal government guards our airports, railroads and post offices. It only makes sense to guard our children as well.
To my knowledge, there has not been an attack on a school where law enforcement personnel were visibly present. Many Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have returned home only to struggle finding gainful employment. These good men and women have been tested under fire and have many skills needed to become effective federal school safety officers. With proper screening and extensive training at one of Homeland Security’s law enforcement and public safety training centers, we could begin deploying safety officers in our nation’s schools by year’s end.
Each officer would be issued a well-marked vehicle to be prominently parked in front of every school as a reminder of our nation’s resolve to stand ever-vigilant against threats to our children.
School leaders and local law enforcement do their level best to ensure student safety, but it’s time we did more.
Some politicians have suggested arming principals, teachers or janitors — ridiculous. Others call for a review of emergency plans — an exercise in false hope. Today’s harsh reality is that there are evil people who will stop at nothing to kill children. A Sandy Hook School Safety Act promises safe and secure schools for our nation.
Daniel Lee is superintendent of the Brewer School Department.
Sigh. The Progressive appetite for more and bigger federal programs never flags. Why would extra security, if it’s preferred to getting rid of the psychopath-enabling (and federally required) ‘gun-free school zones’, not be a state function?
There is a federal role, of course: Congress could rewrite the ‘Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990’ to require the ‘Gun-Free Zone’ signs to be printed in larger letters. Or possibly smaller ones.
So what do you suggest? So far, nothing from conservatives (aka non-progressive or even reactionary).
Non-progressives have been quite active in suggesting that ‘gun-free zones’ should be done away with immediately because they enable mass murderers. Also arming teachers, involuntary commitment of the dangerously mentally ill and so on.
Progressives, on the other hand, seem to be content with recycling the failed ideas of the past: As I’ve remarked before, ‘gun control’ seems to be as much a reflex response to crime for the Left as ‘school prayer’ is for the (religious) Right.
Enough of the ridiculous NRA-propaganda nonsense. Get out of your GI Joe fantasy thinking, and get to the TRUTH about your TeaPublican unholy alliance to the NRA, and as a longtime gun owner and hunter myself I am very proud to say I do NOT belong to your beloved NRA. The NRA and what you are saying here is really all about helping the gun and ammo corporations make big money. They pay the NRA to do their bidding. That is what it is really all about. I hunt, but I don’t need a machine gun to do it. Those weapons belong in the hands of cops and soldiers and no one else. You people resist ANY reasonable controls because you smooch the toenails of the gun and ammo companies. Ya right, arming teachers and school staff. You would have the public schools become like a western movie. How would you secure the weapons yet make them instantly accessable in the event of an instantaneous blitz attack like in Newtown? What would you have, teachers with holsters on in urban high schools? One attacked classroom had a substitute teacher. How are you going to train and arm the many thousands of subs who only work now and again? How would you get everyone trained, certified, and re-trained as needed? How would you PAY for all THAT? You are talking MILLIONS of guns and lots of ammo to arm all school staff throughout the nation. That is simply ridiculous. Talk about government expansion. It would be a MASSIVE expense and undertaking in school systems already WAY overburdened with mandates of all kinds. Next, again, you say you oppose government expansion, but then you say you want a lot of new public resource to go into mandatory commitment for some of the mentally ill. OK, I agree we need to invest much more in our treatment of the mentally ill, seeing there is plenty of money for wars, and for tax giveaways to oil companies, etc. So I guess you really ARE a “socialist” aren’t you? This problem needs to be dealt with on a number of fronts. We need to address the culture of violence in a big way. We need to invest much more in the treatment of the mentally ill especially early intervention. We need to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines which are neither needed for hunting nor personal security. We need to close up all loopholes and make sure all firearms are registered and thorough background checks take place everywhere, GUN SHOWS INCLUDED ! We need to crack down hard on the illegal gun markets. And we need to improve school safety measures with stronger physical plant at access points, video surveillance everywhere, more lockdown drills where needed, and perhaps, as this man suggests, increase security staff. There are a host of things that need to be done. It is your ideas that WOULD NOT WORK and much of which WOULD NOT BE DOABLE. Arming all school staff? How SILLY !
He never stated “all” faculty, I would support “willing” faculty participation in such a program. I discussed this with a teacher who stated she did not feel confident that she could keep a firearm out of the hands of special ed students. Good point, there are also numerous “non-lethal” defense measures that could be enacted (tazers, rubber bullets, bean bags, pepper spray etc) that would at least give faculty some form of defense.
We need to look at this like fire protection in our schools, we have a multi layered defense system in place for Fire Fighting (sprinkler systems, fire alarms, fire drills, extinguishers, non flammable building materials). All this was done after several horrific fires killed numerous children early in the 20th cent.
The facts show that gun violence is down in the US, and gun related homicides are way down from their high in the 90’s. What has changed is the demographic, when gun violence involved inner city minorities shooting each other no one raised the clarion call to stop the shooting. Now that it has come home to white American suburbs (far fewer homicides each year, just in the nicer parts of town) suddenly there is an overwhelming concern.
I am a recently retired teacher – and a gun owner; but I would refuse if I was still working to carry a weapon at school – it is absurd and ridiculous to arm teachers – there are teachers I would not feel comfortable with having weapons on them – knee jerk reactions and comments….
As I said, it should not be compulsory, only available if faculty wanted it. How would you feel about on of the non-lethal measures I indicated? We have to get over throwing around the terms like “kneejerk”, “absurd”, and “ridiculous”, as they add nothing to the conversation, and simply turn it from a conversation into a confrontation. I’m sure there were people who thought installing sprinkler systems was “absurd” 70 years ago. We have to get over the rhetoric, and have a meaningful conversation. Even if gun bans are encted (which I don’t think will happen), someone can walk into the school with a machette and have the same effect. What measures can we put in place to prevent this?
I made the comment about “knee jerk” etc. because all the “Monday morning quarterbacks” with their 20/20 hindsight in this thread are doing just that. My old school I retired from has a resource officer, thats all you need, along with a controlled entry policy into the building; and I’m sorry, but arming teachers and suggesting federal intervention is ridiculous and absurd, so please do not tell me how to speak or think either hopper, I am entitled to my opinion and entitled to express it – if you don’t like it stuff it – retired teacher here.
So dis the school in CO, One person can not control an entire school. Too Many Doors/windows
Judging from your correspondence you certainly do not sound like any educator that I know, just another bullying troll trying to build a fever pitch rather than talk about solutions.
I gave you a solution “My old school I retired from has a resource officer, thats all you need, along with a controlled entry policy into the building” ; yet you chose to ignore that statement and then you proceed to tell me I can’t express my opinion and that I’m a troll – that makes you the passive-agressive troll who simply doesn’t tolerate anyone disagreeing with them.
I apologize, I thought you indicated that you were the resource officer. What exactly is a resource office? apparantly there is not one at my childrens school. I fully agree with controlled access, and our school is going to implement a “buzz in” after school starts. The only problem with that is if the perpetrator is known to the front desk, then they would be allowed in. If the “resource officer” does not have some sort of defensive capability, then they are simply the first person to run or be killed. If the “resource officer” is armed then yes, you have a multi latered system of defense.
A resource officer is both a police officer (and yes armed) and also a also provides guidance and mentoring for students (a deputy sheriff from my old district).
Hopefully that can be implemented across the state.
How would you feel if you were a teacher in CT, and could of had your gun to protect your students, but oops I left it Home, Let the teacher who have carry permits and Balls carry, with Police training every year, and pay them to do it, would cost way less then security guards, This is a New World, and America is not the only Place this has happened remember Norway.
Sorry – disagree with the entire concept, but if you want a police state pursue the option.
Did that SMART CAR just decide on it’s own to remove that girl from ‘it’s’ road?
So special ed students are a threat and other “normal students aren’t? Aren’t we open-minded….
Not at all, that teacher felt that she could not keep a firearm out of reach of her students, which were special ed students. As I stated earlier, pretending to be an educator just to wind up the conflict to a fever pitch helps no one, it is going to take an adult discussion to move forward, apparently you don’t want to be part of that.
Excuse me, but perhaps you should look at your phrasing – I’m trying to be a part of the solution but apparently disagreeing with you is something you can’t handle.
There you go, at least you are answering in a civil fashion. Just because I don’t agree with you should not stop the conversation, that is the essence of conflict resolution. We don’t have to agree, we just have to maintain a dialogue until we can reach common ground. That is how conflict resolution is taught at my childrens school.
I only stop when someone begins a personal attack….
Tazers will not work on a bullet proof vest one shot to the head will
I undersand,
But if educators were unwilling or felt that a firearm in their control presented a danger to their classromm, at least it would be something…. I think of the principle trying to throw herself bodily at the attacker to no avail, perhaps a tazer would have given her a chance.
Good Heavens! Spittle, much?
Someone needs to disarm you, crazy old man!
just to point out a few misnomers you seem bent on propagating.
There is no “gun-show loophole” for FFL dealers. They are bound by federal law to do NICS checks on everyone as well as the required form 4473. Some gunshows allow non-FFLs to come in and set up booths with private collections or allow patrons to buy and sell among themselves inside and outside the event. Now this is only allowed in states that allow private sales and not all gun shows allow that.
I went to the Orrington rod & gun clubs show back in may and one in newport a few weeks before that both had signs that said something to the effect of “no firearms/money shall changed hands inside or outside this event”
As far as arming teachers and staff I don’t see many rational people suggesting every teacher and facility member carrying. I think the general sentiment is those who already have experience or are willing to learn and are ok with the great responsibility carrying a concealed weapon would entail.
In my middle school of less than 500 kids (Maine has a very high rate of military) we had 2 retired army sergeants, a highly decorated vietnam combat veteran, a retired cop, and almost every teacher was an avid hunter (both males and females).
Similar experience in highschool. I am sure out of 30-40 staff three for four people would have glady taken those costs on themselves to stay trained and equipped. Like I said not every teacher will have the capacity to carry nor will want that great amount of responsibility. Substitutes included. Though one of our ed-tech/subs was a former army green beret and combat veteran.
Finally, I am glad you don’t need a machine gun to hunt, considering they aren’t designed for that. Hunting and harvesting wild game is about clean humane one shot kills. Maxium power and accuracy is the name of the game. Machine guns are class 3 weapons already banned in most places and extremely regulated, controlled, and rare in others.
you will never see and organization like NRA or GOA lobbying for the repeal of the NFA or Hughes amendment from the FOPA.
Because those protect the value of machine guns in private collections by keeping the supply very low and the wealthy board members and officers of those organizations have a vested interest in protecting their collections.
No one used a Machine Gun, and why are we sending these type of guns to the middle east to protect them selves against their own GOV, who is going to send us guns if it were reversed, NO ONE WOULD, you need to protect yourself against the Govt as well as an intruder, we only had to protect ourselves against a musket when the 2nd Amendment was written, time to UPGRADE, I also do not belong to the NRA, But I have common sense, and we now protect the airports after 9/11, and that is PRIVATE BUSINESS, time to PROTECT our KIDS, in the PUBLIC PAID buildings, at any cost. 1 kid is too many to loose. This is the WORLD we LIVE in TODAY. In the 70s it was Serial Killers.
So the welfare and warfare state that the progressive liberals support and pay for is not too expensive, but providing security for our children via armed protection and deterence is suddendly too expensive?
Talk about silly…tragic Fail on this post
I feel this is an admission of a failed liberal agenda for ‘controlling’ the excesses of their children. When they run amok with cars, you don’t see parents ‘taking away’ their keys; or their generous ‘allowance’ when they spend it on drink and drugs.
Put up another sign America and go back to sleep; you don’t have the guts to control your children.
Or the states could stand in solidarity and nullify the unconstitutional ‘gun free school zones’ requirements by tearing down the signs and not enforcing the restriction.
The states formed the federal government, we don’t have tyo change a silly law the feds came up with, we just simply don’t have to enforce it…..if a majority of states do this at once, what will the feds do, pull another Lincoln?….perhaps, but I think not
Take a look at the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The states can license individuals to carry on school property. Maine chooses not to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990
We should leave the Federal Government out pf our schools
I love that his solution doesn’t come from Brewer town hall or Augusta. Immediately look to DC? Really?
Yeah really. Could either of your sources come with anything better? If so, let them float it and we’ll consider.
Some schools in Texas do carry guns, and no shootings??
I’m in awe of a White House media control machine that has kept that wacked out Obama supporter, Muslim, Army psychiatrist out of the public spotlight…I feel we no longer ‘own’ the local schools; the federal government does and the Obama White House can spin the news so his rep. isn’t tarnished by a massacre which goes contrary to the LIB/DEM line on gun control—if an Army base can’t control guns, how does Obama expect us too…or Arab ‘rebels’ or Mexican Drug Cartels???
When I think about a level of government with a deft touch and an understanding of Brewer’s local issues, I don’t think Washington. I barely think Augusta.
They are already there…
Assuming one officer per school and a total cost per school (training, salary, insurance etc) of $50000/ annum the total cost would be $4.9 billion. Thats almost a billion more than all the gun sales in the entire country every year. If he’s the superintendent of a school he might want to head down to math department and take a refresher course.
He didn’t really indicate that his plan would totally fund it. Maybe the recently somewhat conciliatory NRA could make up the difference, or maybe even fund the whole thing.
So why should responsible law abiding gun owners pay the bill?
Why not assess all the expensive mental health providers, psychoactive drug vendors who ply the schools with their solutions to put into IEP’s, violent video gamers, and single, overbearing wealthy mothers who can’t even ‘control’ their newly acquired guns, let alone a son with ‘problems’?
“The federal government guards our airports, railroads and post offices. It only makes sense to guard our children as well.”
Airports, railroads, and post offices are involved in interstate commerce. And, of course, the U.S. Postal Service is a quasi-government agency.
Schools, on the other hand, fall under the responsibility of the states.
And what are the states going to do about it?
The states could (and should) legislate within the provisions in the federal law that gives the states the right to license individuals to carry on school property. It’s state law that prevents anyone from legally carrying a weapon onto school property.
Move the schools into airports?
Why don’t we find out how many teachers already have carry permits, and let them carry, give them a bonus every year, and train them with the police annually with the weapon the carry, classify the list of how many and who carries in each school, but each school needs more then one, one person can not cover an entire school., retired police, military ect…
15 years ago we did not think planes would be used as bombs, but here we are, today we have too many school shootings, they have ramped up security at airports,
time to protect our kids at any cost, this is the world we live in its called Reality.
“[T]ime to protect our kids at any cost.”
Yes — let’s just get rid of schools. Problem solved.
Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Therefore, Congress will never discuss it.
We already have resource officers in several Maine schools, who needs another federal law enforcement agency? This should be left up to the state government to administer – from a social progressive.
I agree to keep it in the state, but one person can not protect an entire school, it did not work in CO.
True – can’t disagree with that statement.
Putting more guns into the hands of teachers and the equivalent of ‘mall cops’ won’t deter determined people from executing some kind of mass mayhem. Society once had elaborate screening mechanisms to locate violent people and either HABILITATE them or remove them from civil society.
We sing the song of a free, open diverse society with all kinds of ‘freedoms’ and ‘civil rights’ where kids can spend hours ‘playing’ violent video games that feature well planned attacks, yet are encouraged to avoid attending a church or other organized group that instills morality.
This is the price we pay for an open society……I bet Cabella’s is packed with buyers today , DOE is out of home schooling applications, and armored SUV’s are being prepped for new buyers.
We were not sexually assaulted at an airport or hospital before either, but here we are, and those are both a private business, schools are not, some schools are I know.
Why do Universities Have COPS????
A simple, cheap, and effective answer is readily available. Allow those teachers and other school personnel, who have CCW permits, to carry their guns in school. Already this is being done in some schools in Texas, and other states are considering it now, in the light of the recent shooting of the “legally disarmed” in Sandy Hook.
It is crystal clear to most anyone now, that children and adults in schools designated as “gun free zones” are prime candidates to be on the receiving end of actions of the mad and insane. If just one person in the Sandy Hook school office, had carried a weapon that morning, it is quite possible that most all those children would be alive today. The answer is as plain as the nose on your face, have the means available, to defend the people in the schools.
I have no complaint if towns and cities wish to establish an armed police presence in school buildings. But concealed weapons are more effective because the bad guy would have no idea who was armed, only the knowledge that some, or many, of the occupants might be armed. A uniformed police officer attracts attention, and could easily become the first target of the madman, because he is easily recognized as an officer with a gun.
In any case, the main point that needs to be recognized, is that our schools, and their occupants need to be guarded, and defended, if need be, by a force strong enough to destroy any evil that may walk through the door.
We do NOT need any further federal bureaucracy. There has been enough mess made by outfits such as Homeland Security, that we should have learned that lesson by now.
We trust our teachers and school personnel, to be around our children, and protect them as best they can, why should we have any problem with some of those people, who are trained, and certified by the state police, after a thorough background check, to carry a concealed weapon, to simply carry their weapons while on the job, like many other citizens already do.
If we are OK with our children being around armed police officers, why should we have any problem with them being around school personnel who were trained and legally qualified to carry a concealed weapon. I would rather have my child in a school building where at least one person in that building, legally carried a weapon that, in such an emergency, could be used to defend those helpless others, against any evil that came by, then in one of those buildings with a “gun free zone” sign on the door, signifying that there was no danger to any madman who wished to enter.
It cost the Jews the lives of 6 million of their fellow Jews, to learn that a “passive response” is no protection against evil. Now the Jews are heavily armed, including most all school teachers, and when was the last time you heard of a Jewish school shooting?
Safety comes from being strong enough to resist those who may come along bent on harming you!
As an employee in a public elementary school, a gun owner, and a soon-to-be concealed carry permit holder, I would love to have the option of carrying concealed at work. The fact of the matter is that the state of Maine could make it happen tomorrow, with no Federal involvement. The Gun-Free School Zones Act has provisions for states to license individuals to carry on school property. Maine chose to legislate against these provisions. Employees of schools already need to pass a fingerprint based background check which is more stringent than the phone-in check needed to buy a gun. I would be more than willing to get additional training beyond what is needed for concealed carry. At least one pro-2nd amendment organization has offered such training for school officials at no cost. I would not even expect compensation from work – the ability to be able to provide some sort of protection from the crazies out there would be enough for me. To those that are saying that armed school employees would be of no help in a crisis situation, look at how most of these shooting events end. At the first sign of an armed opponent, many shooters take their own lives. The shooters know they are not going to face any resistance in a school. Changing that fact could go a long way toward stopping these attacks.
Well thought out.