Previous post:

Next post:

Is the White House Considering Police in Schools?

by Keith Koffler on January 11, 2013, 8:39 am

According to the Washington Post, the answer is yes:

The Obama administration is considering funding many more police officers in public schools to secure campuses, a leading Democratic senator said, part of a broad gun violence agenda that is likely to include a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips and universal background checks.

The school safety initiative, one of several under consideration, would make federal dollars available to schools that want to hire police officers and install surveillance equipment, although it is not nearly as far-ranging as the National Rifle Association’s proposal for armed guards in every U.S. school.

This seems to be the right approach – make the money available and let the decision be made at the local level. But it’s more than likely the White House will only embrace the idea as part of a package that includes measures that many gun rights supporters will find unacceptable.

FREE ROAMING FOR INTERNATIONAL CALLS!
Check out the best international Sim Cards and save up to 80% on your phone calls, go to roaming free sims and travelsim!

Leave a Comment

{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }

William January 11, 2013 at 8:43 am

Everytime I see the term “ammunition clip” used, I instantly know that the writer is clueless about the subject of firearms.

That said, I still don’t understand why Bill Clinton’s proposal to put armed guards in schools was fine but the NRA’s proposal to do the same is treated as beyond the pale. And I bet the money comes with a bunch of other strings attached.

Reply

DeniseVB January 11, 2013 at 9:06 am

I believe Clinton’s response to Columbine was putting armed guards in schools but Obama let the funding run out ?

Reply

William January 11, 2013 at 9:22 am

Clinton did propose it, but I don’t think it was ever implemented. Maybe someone else can shed light on that.

Reply

DeniseVB January 11, 2013 at 9:52 am

Cops in Schools was funded. WaPo didn’t mention any of this in their article.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/21/Flashback-Clinton-Cops-in-Schools

Reply

DeniseVB January 11, 2013 at 10:02 am
William January 11, 2013 at 11:55 am

Very interesting. Good research.

Reply

Playrighter January 14, 2013 at 1:00 pm

Clearly a better job of research than that done by David (my kids go to an armed school) Gregory, who verbally assaulted Wayne LaPierre of the NRA for proposing the same thing for which Clinton was praised — and spent some $60 Million of our tax dollars on. Then again, Gregory wasn’t charged for breaking D.C. law with that 30 round magazine, even though D.C. police stated beforehand that it would be illegal to do so. Must be a liberal interpretation of reality and law.

Reply

Shofar January 11, 2013 at 9:48 am

What I can’t figure out is why they don’t look at the causation of these shootings. They seem to want to blame guns and bullying for these people snapping. However, in everything that I have read about the perpetrators there has been several common denominators with all of them.

First, nearly all of them have been male.
Second, all have been in their teens and early twenties.
Third, all have been on some form of mood altering/stabilizing drugs.
Fourth, from what I have read, all have been fans of first person shooter games.

If the WH and the progressives are truly wanting to put a stop to “all these mass shootings” they would look at the common thread(s) with all of the shooters. If the families of the victims truly want to hold someone accountable, then they should go after big pharma, the doctors that prescribed medications but failed to do proper follow up, and the NEA for pushing things like Ritalin on so many children.

I will add one more point. At the start of WWI the military used the classic “bulls-eye” target to train soldiers how to shoot. Men who would shoot perfect scores were unable, in live fire situations, to shoot an actual human. The military realized that they needed to dehumanize the enemy, and switched to targets that looked like a person. The in battle percentage of kills increased after the switch. The same held true for law enforcement. Over time both the military and law enforcement developed targets that looked more human, and the hesitation by soldiers and LEOs to fire on another human dropped, and the kill percentage went up.

This led to the development of live fire simulations. The F.A.T.S training system started to be used by both military and civilian law enforcement personnel. Today’s FPS games are basically the F.A.T.S system in your living room. They dehumanize people, and allow the player to “kill” without the emotional impact that occurs when you take a life.

Today’s modern, disconnected world has brought about a confluence of issues that has led to the creation of the mass shooter. Children who are treated with inappropriate medications and no proper follow-up, and games that have dehumanized their fellow man.

You want to stop the mass shootings and other violence being perpetrated by young men? Rethink how we are medicating them, and allowing them to forget what it is to be human.

Reply

Mike January 11, 2013 at 8:58 pm

Great points. I think a contributing factor to the over-prescription of Ritalin, etc. is the increased isolation of boys in broken or latch-key families which also entails a lack of a healthy group of peers with wholesome outlets for typical male energy. Engaged dads and Boy Scouts or team sports instead of Ritalin and video games.

Reply

dan January 11, 2013 at 9:55 am

Now all across America the police show up at our schools showing off their guns. Once again Government creating the exact opposite result of what they intended. So now kids are more acclimated to guns and even worse a police state. FU Socialist liberals. Maybe you should stick to putting kids on psych meds for being a class clown and over active.

Reply

Susan January 11, 2013 at 10:45 am

There should be no national gun laws in my opinion. Leave it up to the states to be the laboratories of ideas. The Connecticut gun laws are some of the strictest in the country, yet Newtown still happened. Maybe if Sandy Hook hadn’t been a “gun free zone” the victims of that madman would still be alive…

Reply

Girly1 January 11, 2013 at 10:48 am

Last year the local HS in one of SoCal’s mountain resort areas hired a full-time county Sheriff. Surprisingly, it wasn’t about guns – it was about knives, drugs, and sex. It seems that the resort hotel and local restaurants employ undocumented workers (surprise) whose illegal progeny are attending the HS (thank you, Dream Act), and causing a problem with drug dealing and sexual activity on campus – primarily in the rest rooms Stabbings and gang fights are beginning to emerge. Neighborhood burglaries are beginning to occur. Gangbangers are loitering in front of the local businesses. Until recently, the worst ‘crime’ in this tiny enclave was an occasional inebriated guy at the wheel of his motorboat. The locals are beginning to arm themselves.

I’m all for law enforcement in schools, but parents need to take responsibility for their kids. Instead of enacting gun control legislation designed to disarm the good guys, how about going after the parents of kids who carry weapons. and/or use illegal drugs. Once a parent has to go to court and pay a heavy fine, he/she might begin to take note of their child’s extracurricular activities. It’s certainly not a panacea, but discipline begins in the home.

Reply

AZ Granny January 11, 2013 at 12:12 pm

I agree, Girly1, discipline does begin in the home and too many parents are too obsessed with themselves to pay any attention to their kids.

Reply

Danceswithtruth January 11, 2013 at 2:46 pm

You are correct, discipline does belong in the home. Yet, there are still circumstances where that discipline is not effective. Instead of having a “one size fits all” approach how about more of a “situational” approach. You look at all the facts and base a decision after everything is taken into account.

Our daughter is ADHD/Bipolar. The last thing we wanted was to put her on medications, but it was necessary. We had her in counseling every week for almost a year, then it went to every other week after that time until she left our house. We called the police on her when her rage got out of control and she harmed someone in the home (this because we had young children and social services indicated if they were harmed they could be taken from us had we not followed appropriate steps.) We also had her admitted to the psych ward at a local hospital. She knew how to work the system. The medication began in fourth grade and continued until she was 17.

We did everything we could. We tried every punishment we could think of. We went to classes to learn more. We sought help. At the end of the day, it’s still ultimately their decision. At 17, thanks to our lovely state’s loophole, she left home and we were still monetarily and socially responsible for her actions. This is insane. We cannot do anything about her leaving but we have to take responsibility for her actions for a full year.

In a “situational” approach, given everything we attempted with her, she should be held responsible for her actions and decisions. There are plenty of parents that don’t do anything and that is just as well documented. For those parents who are trying to do the right thing, sometimes it just doesn’t take.

Reply

cincycinco January 11, 2013 at 1:47 pm

They’re definitely in favor of armed guards as Sidwell Freinds…

Reply

cincycinco January 11, 2013 at 1:48 pm

“AT” Sidwell Friends, not “AS”!

Reply

Star January 11, 2013 at 3:17 pm

You may think this sounds good until you find the police assigned out in back sneaking up on class ditchers and pot tokers. An army could walk in the front. Just sayin’.

Reply

Mike January 11, 2013 at 8:53 pm

Payola to public worker unions, school districts and state governments. And you know there will be strings attached.

Reply