Skip to main content

View Diary: We don't all live in Newtown. But I do. (127 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Because in order to guard every public school (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    you are looking at a guard force of over 1,250 000 people. Salaries for those people (and if you want good people, you have to pay them) and tech support, weapons, insurance et cetera, would end up with a total cost of $250 Billion/year. That's 1/3 of the Pentagon's budget. It's half of the non-Pentagon budget. We can't get more than a couple billion, TOTAL, for education, but we'll cut loose $250B for guards?
    Where is it going to come from?
    (Let's see, 300 000 000 guns into $250B/Y, how about a tax of $833/year/gun, every gun? Think gun owners would step up for that?)
    BTW, that GAO report works out to $67k/year/guard, That's kind low pay (considering that includes all the costs of employing them, not just their pay) for someone you expect to put their life on the line, idn'tit?

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:25:51 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong. There are 132,656 K12 schools. If you (0+ / 0-)

      paid two teacher volunteers  to take the two days of training required by the Federal Protective Service and gave them a $5000/year pay supplement for duty they would likely never have to perform, then you could have two armed guardians per school for $10,000 per year --
      total cost of $1.3 billion per year or about what we are paying private security firms to guard federal bureaucrats.

      Out of a "Defense/Homeland Security" budget of
      almost $1 Trillion per year.  

      •  Nope. Sorry. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cali Scribe, luckydog, BachFan

        Teachers are NOT armed guards and should not be.
        And 2 guards per school isn't enough. Open campus schools would need dozens of guards, or they'd have to wall up the place, like a prison.
        And paying teachers $5000 a year to risk their lives is insulting. Particularly when they can't get a $5k raise for increasing their teaching skills. Right now, states are trying to find ways to CUT teachers' salaries.
        Making schools an armed camp is not AT ALL the right way to go. Making the outer world safer by reducing the easy access to slaughter weapons is far more effective and in the long run, cheaper.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:48:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Teachers are Renaissance Men (and women) (0+ / 0-)

          1) The Federal Protective Service requirements for giving a gun to a contractor guard are that the guard (a) pass a background check (which teachers already do) (b) have a GED or high school diploma (which teachers already do) and (c) take 2 days of training.  Look at the Commerce Business Daily contract announcements.

          It is absurd to argue that teachers could not handle this job.   We heard the same thing when airline pilots and copilots were armed.

          2) Of course, I think the teachers would have to be volunteers but the duty in no way conflicts with their job.
          The $5000 /year supplement seems reasonable given that they are unlikely to ever have to perform.

           And it doesn't seem reasonable to have a full time guard in most schools because most schools face a very low probability of having a Sandy Hook incident.   The Guard would have nothing to do.

          3) The "armed camp" charge is absurd -- no one is suggesting putting up razor wire and machine gun emplacements.  

          4) It would take about 30  seconds for such guardians to sprint from one end of the school to the middle --far better than the 15 minute response time of the police at Sandy Hook.   Even better would be a surveillance camera monitor in the principal's office and a code over the intercom that would tell the first responders where the intruder is.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site