Vince Gardina's Editorial about armed school guards

[quasar86]

Mr. Gardina's response to the NRA's proposal is typical liberal doublespeak. He agrees with the solution but backhandedly subverts it calling for others to pay. His statement, "I support the National Rifle Association's position of stationing armed guards at every school.....however i do not want my taxes increased to pay for armed school guards" belies his real feelings. As a politician he speaks from both sides of his face.

Personally I don't want my taxes paying for welfare recipients to get dozens of free 'Obama phones' as shown on TV 11 recently, use my tax money to triple the welfare rolls during the current administration or more to the point, pay school taxes when I have no children in school.

The difference is that I have the responsibility to hold to my convictions. If education is to the benefit of all, then I should bear my fair share regardless. So I pay school taxes all my life and don't shirk that responsibility.

Mr. Gardina--if you truly agree with the concept of armed school guards then at least have the courage of those convictions and agree to pay your fair share. Or are you one of those politicians that utilize doublespeak like so many others?

[Baltimatt]

quasar86--

Welcome to the board. Can you tell me where you found this editorial? Quoted material should be linked to the original source. Thank you.

[Saticon3]

So, his taxing priorities are not to raise them for protecting school children. I'd love to see his record, as to what other kinds of things he has been in favor of rasing taxes for. But, we could always cut a school administrator or two.

Most schools have at least 500 students, for $1.00 per school day per pupil, that would be $500.00/day,, $180.00 per year per pupil, more than enough to pay for a regular jurisdictional police officer at school. Wouldn't even have to do it through taxes if you don't want to I bet you could put a donation box in front of the school stating all proceeds go to stationing a police officer at the school, I bet it would voluntarily raise more than enough money.

What I don't get is why libs seem to think armeed guards at school and more/additional/different gun control are mutually exlusive propositions. Why wouldn't they be for both?

[rudy_d]

I'm all for protecting children, but I think it's necessary to weigh the costs and benefits of putting armed guards at every school.

Using Santicon's math, there are about 212k students in Baltimore County schools alone. At $180 per pupil per year, that comes to more than $38 million dollars.

Alternatively, there are about 150 schools in the County. Assuming that an armed guard or police officer placed at every school would be paid $50k per year in salary and benefits (a conservative estimate), that amounts to $7.5 million per year. And that doesn't factor in that the system would need to hire more than 150 to account for sick days, vacations, lunch breaks, etc.

Multiply these numbers across the state and country. That's a massive amount of additional spending at a time when we're talking about fiscal discipline. I doubt that you're going to be able to raise that amount of money voluntarily--taxes will have to be raised or debt will need to be issued.

I don't mean to sound insensitive, but is this really worth it when a mass shooting could occur anywhere where a large number of people gather, not just at schools? Not to mention that there was a uniformed officer at Columbine, and even that failed to stop the tragedy.

[Saticon3]

I don't mean to sound insensitive, but is this really worth it when a mass shooting could occur anywhere where a large number of people gather, not just at schools? Not to mention that there was a uniformed officer at Columbine, and even that failed to stop the tragedy.

IMHO, yes. While thankfully, still rare, school mass shootings are too frequent even at the near miniscule level in the grand scheme that they are now.

I'm generally not for raising taxes, but for this I'll gladly pay. Police officers can benefit schools in ways far beyond security as well. Hence, most secondary schools in my couty anyway have SRO's. Just extend it to Elementary as well.

As for Columbine, well nothing will always, every time prevent a really determined adversary from at least some initial success. All school shooters are not created equal. I have no basis for this, but its just my guess most of the others besides Columbine were not prepared nor desirous of taking on a trained police officer. No coincidence they chose a
"soft" target.

Also, I've never delved deeply into Columbine, but surely much of the thinking on school security has been re-thought. So what was then may not be the case now.

I know my training is different. Before, we were trained to secure the perimiter and wait for SWAT. Now we are trained to form a team of the best 4 or 5 we happen to have on hand and go in.

[Wizard777]

IMHO, yes. While thankfully, still rare, school mass shootings are too frequent even at the near miniscule level in the grand scheme that they are now.

I'm generally not for raising taxes, but for this I'll gladly pay. Police officers can benefit schools in ways far beyond security as well. Hence, most secondary schools in my couty anyway have SRO's. Just extend it to Elementary as well.

As for Columbine, well nothing will always, every time prevent a really determined adversary from at least some initial success. All school shooters are not created equal. I have no basis for this, but its just my guess most of the others besides Columbine were not prepared nor desirous of taking on a trained police officer. No coincidence they chose a
"soft" target.

Also, I've never delved deeply into Columbine, but surely much of the thinking on school security has been re-thought. So what was then may not be the case now.

I know my training is different. Before, we were trained to secure the perimiter and wait for SWAT. Now we are trained to form a team of the best 4 or 5 we happen to have on hand and go in.

You always want to be prepared for the nightmare scenario. In this case the nightmare scenario would be a tactical assault on the school. So I think a school officer should have a strong background in tactical assault. I also don't see a problem with placing school security under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security. So the ideal candidate for school officer would be someone from SWAT working under DHS. I would much rather have an officer from SWAT trying to figure out how to do the paperwork to charge a bully with second degree assault than having a patrol officer trying to figure out how to stop a tactical assault.

As for the cost and who's gonna pay. Currently 1/3 of the nations schools already have armed security. I'm hearing that it would cost 2.8 billion to place armed security in the other 2/3 of the nations schools. The 3 billion we give to Israel every year in military aid when questioned is always said to be a trivial and insignificant amount compared to the over all budget and total debt. So this 2.8 billion to protect our own children should be passed unquestioned and undebated just like Israels military aid. Congress and the White House should not be able to rubber stamp this quick enough just like they do for Israel. Making gun manufactures or gun owners pay for this is just as ridiculous as making the airlines and their passengers pay for all the 9/11 security increases to protect the people from their planes. If we can figure out how to make something that flies at 32,000 feet at hundreds of miles per hour safe. We can figure out how to make schools safe for our children.

[ybnormal]

Speaking of protecting children in school, did anyone see this?

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.

The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.

If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point.

The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).

Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

http://now.msn.com/obama-daughters-a...1-armed-guards

Interesting, eh?

[Omaha Beach]

You always want to be prepared for the nightmare scenario. In this case the nightmare scenario would be a tactical assault on the school. So I think a school officer should have a strong background in tactical assault. I also don't see a problem with placing school security under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security. So the ideal candidate for school officer would be someone from SWAT working under DHS. I would much rather have an officer from SWAT trying to figure out how to do the paperwork to charge a bully with second degree assault than having a patrol officer trying to figure out how to stop a tactical assault.

As for the cost and who's gonna pay. Currently 1/3 of the nations schools already have armed security. I'm hearing that it would cost 2.8 billion to place armed security in the other 2/3 of the nations schools. The 3 billion we give to Israel every year in military aid when questioned is always said to be a trivial and insignificant amount compared to the over all budget and total debt. So this 2.8 billion to protect our own children should be passed unquestioned and undebated just like Israels military aid. Congress and the White House should not be able to rubber stamp this quick enough just like they do for Israel. Making gun manufactures or gun owners pay for this is just as ridiculous as making the airlines and their passengers pay for all the 9/11 security increases to protect the people from their planes. If we can figure out how to make something that flies at 32,000 feet at hundreds of miles per hour safe. We can figure out how to make schools safe for our children.

Dont forget the billions we send to Libya and Egypt or the 3 billion we paid to keep the postal system going( that seems like a yearly expense). With the money this Country wastes every year to say we cannot afford the cost to protect our children is madness and absolutely sickening.

[demopublican]

First of all i question why the Sun fails to properly identify the writer as a long time elected Democrat. That in itself is incredibly poor journalism. Even for a hack paper like the BS4Crats.

Here is the link:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...0,427777.story

But his whole premise is silly and childish.

All of us pay taxes for things we don't support. could list them but I am sure you guys all know the drill.

[Baltimatt]

Thanks for the link, demo.

[demopublican]

I provide the link but the BS editorial board can't bother to inform the public that they are printing a little for a politician that had been in office for decades.