If the NRA Wants an Armed Guard at Every School, They Should Pay for It


They will probably suggest we cut some of the teaching staff to pay for it. Ridiculous! More guns are not going to help anything. This isn't the wild freaking west anymore, we have evolved since then just a bit, though it sounds like a few of you have not quite made it here yet.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said.

Oh, and I love how you put the blame on everything else.

"He blamed video games, movies and music videos for exposing children to a violent culture day in and day out."

More guns mean more gun related deaths, period. Soon we would be using the guns on the children themselves, how would that make you all feel? Hired school guard goes off the deep end??? How many times have you heard of security guards abusing their privileges, and having some kind of authority issue?
So many are not even criminal deaths, just heat of the moment. If there was no gun, there probably would have been no death.
I think this is one of the all time worst ideas ever!
And the line between schools and prisons becomes ever more blurred...
Seeing that my guns will never be used in a school shooting, hear from my heart and heart felt "fuck you".
I like all of these words.
"My guns will never be used in a school shooting." - Nancy Lanza
You people are incredibly stupid. If you arent being led around by your genitals then you are making decisions based on emotion. Neither demonstrates any positive traits as human beings.
No problem, let's take the NRA at their word and require all gun owners to devote four days a year two for training the rest for patrol duty as part of our Well Regulated Militia.

I mean, it's not like we're doing so great at providing safe places for kids to play in, or walk to school, in Harlem or the South Side or some parts of Seattle.

Nice thing about a militia, it's mandatory, and you dont' have to pay people to do it. You can require it. I believe many states even have the laws on the books back from 1820 or 1795 or something, requiring all able bodies to be in the militia.
@#6 "You people are incredibly stupid"???

Just your posting name "Posted by I know plenty of armed faggots" tells us all you are the one lacking in intelligence!
Most colleges already have this, as do most high schools in the puget sound area, the affluent Eastside included. Given the original purpose of the gun control act of 1990 was to curtail gangs this seems like a easy non partisan middle-ground.

People will like this a lot more than blaming the owners of 300 million guns for the actions of a handful of mentally unstable, largely white, criminals.

1 / 300,000,000. Statistically nearly impossible. A gun owner has a better chance of winning powerball twice. Turn off your TV. Its poisoned your brain.
Congratulations to the Stranger. Their daily belly-aching about this to garner eyeballs is spurring on copycats now. Go ahead Goldy - print their names, too. Give then the recognition they so crave! Hope it's worth the ad revenue!
sounds like something Jim McDermott should propose in the next congress. i like it.
Do we get armed guards at movie theaters and cafes as well? Armed guards at house parties to stop the next Kyle Huff?
Ever see an armed guard at a bank?
Or at an ATM when it is being filled with money?
Is money more important than the safety of children?
On average, about 60 out of roughly 800,000 LEO's in the U.S. are killed each year in shoot-outs. Based on that statistic alone, one could anticipate somewhere between 10 and 12 of these 150,000 new officers hired to police schools might meet similarly grisly fates at the hands of heavily armed lunatics, which in turn would leave everyone else in those schools at the mercy of a heavily armed cop-killing lunatic.

I'm certainly no statistician, and I'm sure a qualified one could blow RPG-sized holes in the above scenario, but the fact remains that adding guns to a school environment is a lousy method for reducing the number of fatalities. After all, if the mere presence of armed LEO's itself was a sufficient deterrent in-and-of itself, then why are so many armed LEO's killed in gun fights every year?

Who the fuck cares about the gun owner? Eventually SOMEBODY wins the powerball...
"After all, if the mere presence of armed LEO's itself was a sufficient deterrent in-and-of itself, then why are so many armed LEO's killed in gun fights every year?"

Because the police are sent in when there is trouble.
It's not a deterrent.
It's an emergency response.
Think of firefighters.
Just because the average firefighter might see 6 house fires a year does not mean that adding more firefighters means more houses will catch fire.
Present the evidence of adding guns creating a more stable, peaceful society. It's a gun lobby proposal, and they should demonstrate why it would work and how it would be paid for. Instead, this is just a talking point for the trolls on here. The right is for a well-regulated militia. How is this proposal in support of that right?
"The right is for a well-regulated militia. "

What? Since when? Which "right" are you talking about?
@14: Is your unfettered freedom to own however many firearms of whatever type you desire more important than the safety of children?
Democrats should put a bill before Congress to hire 100,000 armed police for our schools now. Paid for by a gun tax. Or a new tax on the rich. Whatever, it must be paid for and it must get an up or down vote in Congress.

I think the NRA's plan is that after the next massacre, due next week or next month; definitely no later than the month after that, they will say, "This could have been prevented if we'd had our armed school cops!"

Democrats should vote for these armed guards. Let the Republicans vote up or down on this massive new government program. Let them and the NRA run on their vote in the midterms.
Oops. That didn't take long. Four dead in PA. Three cops injured. Or is a body count that low even news nowadays?
Just a reminder:

Columbine had its owned armed police officer. Virginia Tech had its own police department.

Your numbers were right on. It currently costs between $125k and $150k for the high school resource officer here in Snohomish County. He is dedicated to the school while in session and works regular beat during the summer. While on campus he is still expected to respond to the community on certain calls and has done so a couple of times this year.
Apparently the Founding Fathers thought so.
They were even in favor of private ownership of cannons.

Like I said, money gets an armed guard.
Why do you think money is more important than children?
Seventy-five dollars a year is pissing in the pot. Make it $375/gun. Make guns so expensive and complicated to own that even rich fools won't want them in the house.
Obviously that is too expensive. Blackwater (or whatever they changed their name to) could get the job done for a few billion less.
Make them too expensive and you'll just create/continue a black market for unregistered guns.

I support gun ownership rights in principle, but I would support a reasonable annual fee, along with mandatory training and license renewal, and more stringent standards to get a license (as opposed to will-issue like we have in WA).
@27 - Blackwater got $500K annually per person for its protective services in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, many of our enlisted soldiers were getting $20K or less.

And they say the government is less efficient than private industry.
@29 Blackwater would just hire "keystone cops" through some third party, and then pocket the profits.

By the way, I hope you realize I was being facetious in my original comment.
@30 - Yes, I got that. Blackwater was famously overpaid.
@25: "Apparently the Founding Fathers thought so. They were even in favor of private ownership of cannons." [citation needed]

Why do you think money is more important than children.

Why do you think your right to own as many weapons as you want of whatever kinds you want is more important than children?

Stationing an armed guard - well, really, several armed guards, because one won't really do the job - in every school in America will almost certainly increase the risk to children. Increased risk of accidental shooting because of the presence of weapons in school. Increased risk of deliberate shooting because of the presence of weapons in school. (Seriously - the greatest risk factor for being shot in your own house? Having a gun in your own house. You can look it up.) Increased risk overall of some sort of shooting incident. (Google "suicide by cop". What better place to make sure that works than at a school?)
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said.

Careful, LaPierre, that rather sounds like an invitation.

Tell that to the families of the officers killed in Lakewood.

Also (as someone pointed out in another thread), one can always look to the example of armed guards (not to mention an entire array of passive deterrent systems) used in banks, none of which deter criminals from robbing banks at a rate of some 5,000 - 6,000 per year.
@21 I like that - a gun owners excise tax to pay for the guards in schools.

I have never, not once, seen an armed guard at a bank.

You watch too many movies.
@19 second amendment fuckhead.
Are these going to be unionized officers?
@36, I have. Not usually, but sometimes.

I had a friend once here in Seattle, back in the 70s, who robbed a bank at gunpoint, several of them, actually; at the last one, he shot and killed the armed guard. He later hanged himself in prison. His story is in one of Ann Rule's books. We used to buy Metro bus passes from him; they sold them at banks back then. We had no idea that was how he was getting ahold of them. We thought he worked at Metro.

So there's your armed guard failure story for today.
"I have never, not once, seen an armed guard at a bank."

How about adding a fee to the purchase of every single gun. It's hard to figure out how many guns are sold per year but one stat that is available is the number of background checks done each year for the purchase of a gun. It is roughly 17M per year. So, $18B/17M background checks is >$1,000 per background check. You could just round the fee to $1,000.


I would be willing to go along with putting an armed guard in every school as part of a more comprehesive bill banning all automatic and semi-automatic weapons of any kind, period, along with a ban of large capacity magazines and so-called cop killer ammunition and a serious buy-back program for those weapons.
Contrary to popular belief, Israel does not put armed guards in their schools (there are a few in the kibbutz areas which are not well insulated and experience terrorists on an almost daily basis. Israel has checkpoints surrounding the country with armed guards at each. Some are near schools. They would never go INSIDE the schools to scare the children. Yet they are very effective in preventing school attacks (in fact there's never been one in Israel..tho many have been thwarted). Israel is a very different country than many think. At its widest width it is about 5 miles across; you can throw a rock across most of it. Preparing safety measures in a country the size of the U.S. and using Israel is not real bright.
@beardiethor: 5 miles across? hello what are you talking about?
Funny how the liberal communists get away with "fast and furious", as well as pushing the narrative for more gun control while denying the fact that Chicago and New York City have some of the highest murder rates as well as some of the stiffest gun control laws. Go figure?
I loved the bumper sticker saying "Blaming guns on Columbine is like blaming a spoon for Rosie O’Donnell for being fat". It's about the idiot behind the utensil!
It's not real often that I find myself agreeing with Goldy, who I generally regard as a typical fake-o Seattle "progressive" of the kind that sets my teeth on edge. But there are exceptions to every rule, and this column is one of them.

Wayne LaPierre actually had some good points in his speech, but the centerpiece was sufficiently phony to obscure the rest of what he said. He's an oily scumbag, and so is the National Rifle Association. The best thing, as Goldy suggests, would be to call their bluff on the cops and announce that yes, we'll do that and fund it with a tax on guns and ammo.

p.s.: And I say the foregoing as someone who is reconciled to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the second amendment, and who thinks that a whole lot of the gun control rhetoric is counterproductive to the point of sheer idiocy. But LaPierre's proposal was a gigantic, arrogant, right wing nut insult.