Letters: Armed guards needed at schools

When you walk into any bank in America, you will see an armed security officer within the first few seconds of your visit, if you’re not greeted by him or her. Why is it that after several school shootings in other states and guns are found in schools here in our state, has the Legislature not picked up this fact and taken action? The state mandates that we send our children to school under the understanding that they will be protected.

They need to make a law and fund uniformed armed officers who will be in every school in our state every day students are there. When and at what cost will our state learn this lesson? Where is the government for the people?

Mike Ducote

prison guard

Angola

Comments

1) Comment by Traveler - 27/12/2012

While this very interesting and important discussion over how to make our schools safe continues, my guess is that some teachers are now going to be carrying concealed weapons to work. My guess is that they are going to prefer trying to explain that choice to a judge rather than knowing that their families would have to be informed of their deaths and the deaths of students following another horrible massacre. I'm not happy with this prospect, but knowing teachers as I do, I think that some of them will take matters into their own hands to protect the children and themselves from possible mayhem. I recall a former EBRP school superintendent whose motto for progress was "by any means necessary"----I have an idea that many teachers nation-wide will take that attitude to heart. Heaven help us.

2) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 26/12/2012

Perhaps we need a bit of perspective here. As we seek to respond to the recent tragedy, we need to keep a sense of perspective, I believe. In addition to the events detailed below by HLH about the failure of security guards at Columbine, the security guard at Red Lake High School in a 2005 shooting was killed by a shooter who also killed a teacher and four students at the school. Now, I'd like to share an even bigger dose of perspective. In the year that included the horrors of Columbine, there were a total of 33 murders of adults and children at school or during transportation to or from school or related school activities. During that same year, 2374 school age children were murdered. So in that year, school related murders made up a little over 1.3% of all school age children murdered that year. Considering that school age children spend approximately 17% of their time in school... if schools were as dangerous as all other locations, we might expect schools to have somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 murders. Obviously schools are much safer for students than the home and neighborhood, when it comes to murder. In the 2009- 2010 school year, there were 25 murders of students and adults in schools or during transportation and school related activities. During that same year there were three killings in schools by armed officers. During that year, murders at school represented less than 2% of all murders of school age children. In fact, the Department of Justice has not found a year where school-related deaths represented over 2% of all school-age murders. Again, this is an indication that deaths caused by school shootings are not nearly as prevalent as the murder of students outside of schools. Whenever we were faced with a question of policy, especially in response to a particularly tragic event, I always asked this question of the School Board and Administration: "What is the opportunity-cost of their proposed solution." In very simple terms, the opportunity-cost is the cost of one solution as opposed to other alternative solutions. What other options are lost in taking one particular approach. To take it out of the immediate realm and lessen the emotional response, I will point out a similar question I raised when there were students killed in a bus accident in the US... parents and legislators immediately talked about installing seat belts on all busses. Would it save lives? Possibly. Here was just one question I raised in testimony at the legislature. "If we were required to retrofit all older busses, and have all new busses equipped with seat belts, what would this do to our ability to purchase new busses, which are much safer in terms of new technology for keeping students safe than the older busses." Luckily, the National Traffic and Safety Administration had a study in the works. It found that there was little increase in safety, overall, for students. The costs would have prevented us from replacing much older busses with new, safer busses as well. In addition, there would be a net financial loss to the district due to forgoing to more fuel-efficient newer busses. I am amazed that people commenting on here often criticize some of us saying, "all you care about is money!" Amazing considering that somehow basic economics seems to be denied in the statement. Funding is finite, needs and desirable services in schools not so finite, as the present proposal suggests! IF we put seat belts on ALL busses, there would not be money for some other purposes! In the case of safety officers for schools, let's just imagine what the opportunity cost might be. Let's use some round numbers. With over 1300 public schools in the state, and fewer than 300 having full-time security at the schools, we will use a round number of 1000 schools to equip with armed security guards. What shall we pay them? We certainly don't want minimum wage (most of the current security is provided via trained law-enforcement personnel, costing districts well over $50,000 per year per school) so we will use a round number of $50,000 per school per year. Now keep in mind, this is not going to be enough for large schools, but we will use this number for now. So, $50,000 times 1000 schools currently without protection, we get a total of 50 million dollars a year. Not a particularly large number some might say, but what would making that choice entail? In the absence of new funds, a likely scenario, what cuts would have to be made to existing programs? Cuts in social workers, school counselors? The very people likely to be of assistance in identifying students who might be having some violent tendencies (if only these employees weren't so busy supporting the test-taking mania of the "reformers), would we cut their positions? Schools are the safest places for kids, and please, we all know and understand that the particular schools in the recent tragedies are NOT the norm, yet overall schools are the safest places for school age children. Both the Department of Justice and the National Center for Education Statistics bear this out. As we seek to deal with the tragedies, let's keep all options open, and not respond to knee-jerk reactions that are best described as "do something--even if it is wrong!" Our children deserve better.

3) Comment by HLH - 26/12/2012

Most people seem to forget that there was an armed guard at Columbine. He attempted to stop one of the gunmen and missed. He called for backup and a motorcycle officer who was near the school responded. Same results - fired at one of the shooters and didn't hit him. Both shooters retreated deeper into the school. Saying that a good guy with a gun is the answer isn't always true. Two deputies couldn't stop them - what makes you so sure that others won't have the same results?

4) Comment by billynurse - 26/12/2012

There are many ways to fund the school security. You can't tell me that the same government that wants to put every so-called disadvantaged Tom, Dick & Harry on the public dole all of a sudden wants to get thrifty! We can use the "savings" from not trying to enforce useless gun retrictions. Let's just all agree that, despite the lip service about viable options (like actually commiting the deranged without having conniptions about, OMG!, their "civil rights!"), the ONLY goal of the powers-that-be is to curtail the ability of the populace to defend ourselves.

5) Comment by Springer98 - 26/12/2012

@Mildred Citizen & 1ryben, If neither of you can recall seeing armed security at the banks that you do business with, you must not be doing any banking in North Baton Rouge! Maybe the folks who own these banks are racist, but every branch that I go to in North Baton Rouge, has an armed guard!! So don't be scared to come & do a little banking in NBR. You might want to bring your gun, though.....

6) Comment by nimby? - 26/12/2012

the super-powers have weapons they never plan to use , called deterrents . a uniformed presence , armed or not would serve the same purpose .

7) Comment by 1ryben - 26/12/2012

You are correct, I do not venture to North Baton Rouge often. Not sure what that proved, just thought is confirm your suspicions.

8) Comment by teacherguy - 26/12/2012

8.6...you give teachers unions in LA WAY too much credit...if they were nearly as active and "powerful" as you say...well, they wouldn't be begging judges to see their common sense reasoning with the illogical passing of the latest reforms. I'd also like to add, the states with the "best" school results have the strongest teacher unions in the US. Those states with unions as impotent as LA's rank near the bottom in the nation. Please try to speak sensibly when discussing unions? Here is the problem with training teachers to use hand guns...we know that handguns do not have a place on school campuses (the need for deadly force there is a statistical anomaly), so even the most hardcore ex-military vet that would fit into the category of teacher/militant would be VERY wary to walk into a group of students with a gun at the ready even if there were an armed perp among those students. In 19 years of experience, I've never ONCE considered deadly force as a viable option on a school campus. It is different if there were an intruder into your home...no matter what their purpose, if they are in your home and they aren't invited...you may use deadly force. That is simple, but on school campus where the variables are so inconsistent from second to second...you can't manufacture an armed guard mentality into a teacher where even self defense from an attacking student can land you on the losing side in a courtroom if they determine the adult used too much force in defending himself. We already make fun of do-nut eating cops that are supposed to be protecting the city...can you imagine what these armed guards would become given a couple of years without any incidents? I'm thinking give the principal a taser, pepper spray...some other non-lethal alternative. Even gun enthusiasts will tell you that putting a weapon under lock and key is a recipe for disaster because in most events...getting to it is not an option (put gun by nightstand instead of in a safe in the closet, etc.).

9) Comment by DMJ - 26/12/2012

Who's going to pay for all the armed guards? The NRA? Ha!

10) Comment by phil - 26/12/2012

I am not against this idea except for the added costs. Perhaps each school could have volunteer teachers willing to take a gun safety course or whatever is needed, and each school could have a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot (or other) in a safe locked- up place in case it is needed. Get the word out and maybe idiots who want to go into schools and hurt students or teachers will then think twice about trying it. I personally do not like the fact that we have gotten to the point where something like this is needed. However, there are so many guns in our society now, I think it would almost be impossible to pass any new gun laws that would help this problem in the short term.

11) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 26/12/2012

8.6 is allergic to facts, like this one: only 11.6% of Louisiana's teachers are members of any of the unions. --- http://teacherunionexposed.com/state.cfm?state=LA

12) Comment by nimby? - 26/12/2012

there are many returning or retired members of the military who would be happy to volunteer their services . an ex drill sergeant on campus might also improve discipline .

13) Comment by spqr - 26/12/2012

8.6...unless every teacher joins the union, and many do not, that sarcastic plan could not work. Your attempt at humor at the expense of those in unions is the ingredient your governor and media have baked for the consumption of the brainwashed. So, in the spirit of the holiday, eat up. Warning: you may become obese with ignorance.

14) Comment by 8point6 - 26/12/2012

The teachers unions could foot the bill for armed security at schools with a portion of their union dues. If that's not enough, then, they could go up on the dues to make up the difference.

15) Comment by postscript56 - 26/12/2012

I agree with Mildred, try, and teacher. More people carrying more guns will result in more gun violence. Why is that so difficult to understand? I don't trust most cops who carry a gun and they are highly restricted in the use of their weapon. Some low paid security officer with a gun isn't going to make me feel safer. It would only be a matter of time before he shot someone by mistake. Highly trained cops do it all the time. Why should we think armed security will demonstrate better judgement?

16) Comment by teacherguy - 25/12/2012

An armed guard on every campus? That is tantamount to saying we need an armed guard everywhere there has been a shooting recently...movie theater, university (wait they have campus police), shopping mall, church, house fire (taking yesterday's attack into account), etc. Schools generally have more than one entrance...so which entrance shall we post the guard at? A smart invader would either neutralize the armed guard first, or simply enter on the other end of the campus...here's a better idea...replace every teacher with an armed guard! The legislature basically said in the last session that anyone can teach...having college-trained and experienced teachers is becoming a thing of the past, anyway.

17) Comment by 1ryben - 25/12/2012

So we've eliminated bank robberies? Shootings? I went to the bank earlier this week and do not recall any such thing. We can't afford to get these kids the supplies they need to learn their school lessons so we'll be able to allocate more resources for an armored guard? Where will we station her? Near the entrance as a sign of force? Will she pull her weapon on every poor soul dare to walk toward the building? If not, I bet she gets shot first. So lets have multiple guards...like prisons. Yup, that's what schools should be like.m

18) Comment by Mildred Citizen - 25/12/2012

I own and operate several businesses. We usually bank at the closest bank to the business. In five different banks that I can immediately think of, I have never seen an armed guard there. I don't think this is advisable. This would be a job for someone with a high degree of critical thinking skills. Failing that, tragedy is almost certain to occur. Many of the police and sheriff's deputies in rural communities earn little more than minimum wage. This is not meant to impugn the character of those who serve, but you are not going to attract the highest caliber candidates at that wage scale and you can be sure that is what will be posted at the schools in our rural areas. This is not a workable idea. I would rather arm and train the college educated teachers that wish to carry voluntarily.