Published: Sunday, Jan. 27 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
The cost of placing an armed guard in schools is very expensive. An entry level
police officer, in Utah, is paid close to $35,000 in salary, plus fringe
benefits in the neighborhood of 25% of entry level salary, placing the cost at
$43,750. per school - not counting equipment costs, etc. Just count the number
of elementary schools in Weber County. On one hand you don't want to
increase your taxes, and on the other hand you want to bankrupt the school
district's budget with armed guard costs. Think this through. Putting an
armed guard in every school is the NRA's method of deflecting clear
thinking from the reality of gun violence in America. Stopping gun violence is
the issue. Keep you eye on the ball. Gun violence is created by the use of a
gun. It is not a single issue solution. Yes, we need to do better with funding
for mental health, but you can't take the gun out of gun violence. Over
30,000 people will die from gun violence next year if we continue to do nothing.
This is available today. It is a states issue. Unless of course,
you want the federal government to pay for it.Otherwise, completely
doable today. State by state.
The idea of putting armed guards in all our schools is nothing short of
ludicrous. What's next?Razor wire fences and guard towers?Why not work together to try to find some SENSIBLE solutions to gun
violence even if that might mean that both sides must give a little? There are
good solutions out there. But only if we care enough to seek them.
99,000 public schools times an average salary of $40,000 is "only" 3.96
billion each year.It is easily paid for.Divide 3.96
billion by 300 million private guns and a tax of $14 per gun will more than pay
for the NRA-suggested security. As we saw with the healthcare tax, a gun tax
will pass a challenge to the Supreme Court.
Re: ". . . you can't take the gun out of gun violence."But, you sure can take the common sense out of arguments over how to address
it.Just look at all the liberal "solutions" that involve
disarming the good guys -- decent, law-abiding citizens -- without seriously
addressing the real issue. Bad guys with guns.It's a well known
fact, proved time and time again by the failure of liberal gun control measures
to affect gun violence -- laws disarming Americans will only be obeyed by those
Americans least likely to be involved in gun violence.They will do
NOTHING to actually address gun violence.So, what is liberals'
More fibs from the right. There are NO proposals to disarm the good guys.
NONE.Is it too much to ask for some simply sensible solutions?Is it too much to close the gun show loophole and require background
checks for EVERY gun sale -- whether through a dealer or private? Is it too
much to restrict magazine capacity? Is it too much to provide a way for
psychologists to report to authorities people they believe are dangerous -- and
provide a way to remove guns from their hands if they own them? Is it too much
to look at the need to begin counting convictions for MISDEMEANOR offenses that
involve violence instead of waiting until someone has been convicted of a
felony?There are SENSIBLE solutions out there. Both sides will need
to give up some of their fear and paranoia -- which exists on both sides of the
issue.Those few left wing extremists who want to ban all guns and
those on the right who would open the door to anything. Neither side makes any
sense. And certainly the NRA does not.We CAN find answers. But we
must be willing to THINK and SEEK them.
Nobody is comming for your guns. You just have to be incredibly gullible for the
last 30 years of hype to believe that. The NRA isn't going to
say, "They want background checks to keep bad people from having guns!"
because nobody would care and it wouldn't make guns fly off the shelves.
It's been 30 years since the NRA started this scare tactic and
no democratic president has EVER threatened to take or has tried to take, your
guns. But you believe it anyway.
In Utah many schools already have background checked armed guards. These are
teachers who have Utah concealed carry permits who volunteer to take on the
added responsibility of defending themselves and their students. This costs us
NOTHING.Utah would do well to offer these teachers additional
training at one of our police academy's and give these teachers credit
towards their license renewal for this time spent.As a parent I am
grateful to these teachers and to our far sighted legislators for passing the
laws that make possible. Utah is also consistently recognized as the best or
one of the best well managed states (depending on which study). Thanks again
legislators and Governor.
one old manOgden, UTThe idea of putting armed guards in all our
schools is nothing short of ludicrous. What's next?Razor wire
fences and guard towers?===============Hahaha,
agreed!And uniforms, and metal detectors, and photo-
I.D. cards for students, and dogs, and video cameras, and
barred windows and doors...Leave the criminals and THEIR guns to
roam free on the streets, and make the schools look like prisons...for
Security's sake!A regular NRA Utopia!
The political right has spent the last decade or so demonizing public school,
er, government school teachers as incompetent, tenure-protected,
liberal-philosophy-indoctrinating union thugs. Now they want to arm them?Article: "When the NRA's Wayne LaPierre proposed armed
security at every school, the media reacted with a tidal wave of derision and
contempt. How could anyone dare say that we live in a society where our children
need armed police protection, and need it now?"No, the derision
is because the NRA's propsed solution is inadequate to address the problem
of mass shootings in schools and the larger problem of gun violence generally.
What about school children on buses? Should each bus have an armed guard also?
It would have done nothing to prevent the Aurora theater killings or Camp Bragg
or Virginia Tech. The logical conclusion of this line of thinking is a country
with armed guards on every corner.Ironically, the NRA, a bastion of
conservative thought, can only come up with a taxpayer-funded big government
program to address the problem. Surely they could have conceived of something
more creative and freedom-affirming.
The armed guard at Columbine didn't stop anything bad from happening there.
Ft. Hood shooting.
If it was financially feasible, it would be a decent idea. But it isn't.
And though schools shootings are tragic, they are rare events. I'd rather
money be spent to improve education overall. Perhaps then we might have less
alienated students. Who knows. I like the idea of police officers regularly
patrolling schools like they are doing Pleasant Grove but no need to station a
police officer in every school but have a presence. Perhaps in high schools a
school resource officer is a good idea but it was a good idea for other reasons
then waiting to stop a school shooting.
The Salt Lake City Police Chief is supporting Senator Feinstein's
recommendations for stricter gun regulation - and the Deseret News says nothing?
How can the editors of a major Salt Lake Newspaper remain silent when the Chief
of Police of the city the paper is located in makes national news?
If a politician remains silent, it is understandable. When a newspaper remains
silent, on a life saving issue, they are shirking their Constitutional
responsibilities. Is the Deseret News afraid of the NRA? Does the Deseret News
support the NRA? Where does the editor stand on this important national debate?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments