Free Markets, Free People

Considering armed school guards

Is it really so horrible to talk about armed law enforcement officers at our schools?   Or do we prefer continue to listen to stories and watch video of anguished parents standing outside a school under siege and wondering whether their child made it?

If we really want this “discussion” that the left appears to be craving, this is a viable and practical way to combat such acts of violence in schools.  And yes, it means more guns and near a school too.  Unless you’re comfortable with a 20 minute wait time for the local cops to arrive.  Yeah, not much shooting can happen in 20 minutes, can it?

Of course, we all know what that really means when the left claims to want to have a discusion, don’t we?  It means the left getting their way and  banning guns. They are really not interested in considering alternatives or actually hearing contrary opinion. And God forbid you should use facts. When the left talks about having a discussion, they’re essentially saying ‘you sit and listen to me talk and then we’ll do it my way’.  And if you refuse, they call you every vile name they can think of, and when you answer, they claim you’re being uncivil.  Wash, rinse and repeat.

Anyway …

It seems interesting to me that no one had a real problem with air marshals when they were put on aircraft. Remember them? They were a reaction to the fact that government had disarmed everyone that flies on an airplane, and consequently terrorists with box cutters were able to take advantage of that and finally kill 3,000 on 9/11 without anyone on two of the flights being able to put up a defense (except flight 93, of course).  The flying public was downright pleased, in fact, to know the marshalls were aboard.

LaPierre discussed in detail an inconvenient fact many in the media and on Capitol Hill have failed to acknowledge: gun free school zones leave children vulnerable to violent attacks carried out by madmen. LaPierre said making schools gun free over the years has simply told “every insane killer in America that schools are the safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with little risk.”

He’s right. You think an “insane killer” would attempt the same thing at a gun show? They are not that insane. Instead they look  the place of least resistance. And that would be a “gun free zone”. Schools, unfortunately, are easy targets because they are usually  gun free zones.

Right now we have no problem arming guards and  stationing them  at critical facilities. You read about very few “insane killers” trying to get inside a federal building, at least not anymore. That’s because they know they will meet armed resistance. So why not go to a school instead?

If the left really wants to have a “discussion” about the school shootings in Connecticut, then this must be on the table. The whole point of course is to make those “insane killers” reject schools as an easy target. What better way to do that than to make it clear that they will face  well trained armed guards if they try?

It all goes back to the discussion of  human nature.  Few  “insane killers” are going to go somewhere where they may not be able to  accomplish their murderous deed in the manner they wish. Instead, they’re going to look for the easiest target.  Certainly having armed guards at schools isn’t what we would prefer (and no, it won’t forever traumatize little Johnny and Jane to have them). But reality rarely cares what we prefer.

It is time we deal with reality.  Bulletin: we live in a dangerous society that has any number of deranged people in it.  I’m not sure how many more school shootings we have to suffer before we get the message. Certainly not an ideal solution, but definitely a very practical solution.  It won’t guarantee the safety of our children necessarily, but it certainly will give them a fighting chance. And, probably more importantly,  once it becomes known that schools routinely employ armed guards, my guess is the “insane killers” will attempt to find newer and less threatening targets with which to claim their 15 minutes of fame.


41 Responses to Considering armed school guards

  • There is no need to put LEOs in, either.
    A lot of people…retirees for instance…would serve this purpose.  They don’t need to be police.  They need to be armed and trained to one single purpose…standing in the breach and stopping an aggressor.  Many men and women would volunteer for a few hours a week, and many more would be happy to serve for nominal pay.
    The schools should post signs, as well…
    Armed security on campus

    • Hey, it’s for the children .. and I can’t argue with that.
      Marlboro Township, NJ

      It’s apparently the first district nationwide bent on packing heat in every schoolhouse since madman Adam Lanza gunned down 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14.

      “We’ve made a collective decision as a town that we need armed security in each of our schools,” Mayor Jonathan Hornik told The Post.

      “With this new evil, you can’t just sit there and hope that it doesn’t happen in your town. We must protect our kids.”
      In this lastest chapter of ObamaDoesn’tCare, these people put their children ahead of political posturing but BS-artists like our Pres**ent, and adopt a version of the Boxer/NRA plan

  • Except that we don’t want to live in a police state, and we don’t want to feel like we need there to be an armed policeman in every building nor on every corner to ensure our safety.
    The real solution is to repeal the federal Gun Free School laws and allow teachers to carry concealed firearms to school, if they wish to do so.  The states can do this on their own without any federal action.  Utah has done it, and between this and the frequency of concealed carry around here, every public violence spree that’s been attempted has quickly been stopped by an armed citizen.
    In short, we don’t need a government solution to this problem that they created, we need another less-government-more-freedom solution.

    • Well as stated in the post, reality doesn’t really much care what we want or don’t want, it just deals us “what is”. And “what is” are deranged killers targeting our schools. So unless you have a better solution, perhaps at least the interim solution is armed guards. Obviously we prefer it to be otherwise, but the spate of unopposed school shootings, i. e. reality, says we should take that interim step, until such a time as we have a better solution. That is unless we prefer to pretend versus facing reality.

  • Insty links to a long but worthwhile posting by Larry Correia that addresses this point (and many many others).  In it, he argues persuasively that it is not guards rather those already employed by said schools that are willing to go through the training and verification processes that states ought to allow (he says encourage) to carry concealed weapons.
    And as you say McQ, even when Obama says we need compromise, he doesn’t mean it.  Would he or any of the other gun-control-nuts even consider a concession on magazine size and armor piercing rounds for a federal elimination of gun-free zones?

  • There was a short blurb on Slate about this issue, with the author pointing to the fact that Columbine had an armed guard.  I guess the implication was that guards are useless.  However, the guard at Columbine actually got into a firefight with the shooters and relayed tactical information to responding officers.  Sounds like the guard had some use after all!

    • Jabba The Moore–ON on Twitter…
      Armed guards in schools? Hmmmm… Oh! That’s why the 2 armed guards that were at Columbine HS that day were able to prevent the 15 deaths?

      The DID save lives.  Not every one, but MANY.

      • Oh, it didn’t work perfectly in one instance. Lets forget about it then!

        • Yeah, some moonbats penetrated the Y-12 nuke facility, too.
          Time to pull all the armed guards off the nuclear plants and installations…
          Banks, too.  They get robbed, even when they have armed guards.
          An amazing display of “thinking”

        • And banning guns is going to be 100% effective?
          Basically banning guns relies on the shooter not wanting to go to the bad part of town and buy a gun out of the trunk of a car.  What would be the effectiveness of that be?  Single digits?  And completely offset by the dramatically increased value of having a gun (wolf among sheep).

          • Add to that, the only way to ‘ban guns’ would be to seal the border.  How much will that cost?

          • I mean how many successful illegal border crossings do we have a year?  Imagine if even just 10% of those people carried a gun for 50 or 100 Dollars?  And guns aren’t consumed in quantities like drugs.  A well cared for gun lasts decades at least.
            Tie ‘banning guns’ with sealing the border and watch the discussion collapse in seconds.

  • Kills me that these people think kids will be ‘traumatized’.   That’s learned behavior.
    I went to a school where you dealt with Joe Chandler, assistant principle, former gym teacher, if you were in any way out of line.  Joe could handle you in any number of ways, he could be half-nice if you were merely erring in your ways, or he could toss you through a bank of lockers if you were really naughty.   I don’t recall being particularly traumatized knowing there was someone like Joe plowing around the building in his suit jacket and tie, overseeing the herd.  If I was to find out today that Joe as armed the whole time, it wouldn’t surprise me a single bit.
    People who put that kind of ‘traumatized’ crap on their kids are the ones with the problem, not the kids.

    It was good for Clinton.  But, as we know…It is different when they do it.

  • I’ve been reading a lot of posts about the shooting all over the web, and the sane, sensible ones are like this one. It seems to me that the problem boils down to — there are bad people out there. Some are criminals, some are crazy, some are both. We need to stop these people from hurting us and our children. How do we do that? Some basic premises:
    One. Forget regulation. Period. People (and I include those on both sides of the aisle) have this idea of “I don’t like X. If we outlaw X, X will magically go away.” In this particular case X happens to be guns. It. will. not. work. Crazies don’t care what the law says. Crooks don’t care, either. The only way to stop a bad person from hurting people is to physically prevent him from doing so.


    Two. Forget keeping weapons out of their hands. There is no Klaatu. Even if somehow every gun on the planet vanished tomorrow, there would still be knives, axes, chainsaws, swords, sticks, pencils, gasoline, cars, home-made explosives, home-made toxins, clothesline, duct tape, plastic bags, etc. to get the job done. A bad guy doesn’t need to be Jamie Hyneman to make everyday objects dangerous. 3000 people were murdered on 9-11 without a single firearm involved. Gun-free Haiti was terrorized by machete-wielding gangs. If they want to wreak havoc, they will find something to do it with.


    We can try keeping them out of striking distance. Ideally for all concerned, this would mean confining them somewhere away from their potential victims, but that runs into the difficulty of identifying them. Garden variety violent criminals are fairly easy to spot, if a bit more problematic to get off the streets. Crazies are much, much harder. There are a lot of cockeyed people out there. Some of them are really, really annoying, but most of them don’t go around killing people. You can’t just lock up everybody who seems a little odd. Odd is subjective, to say nothing of the possible political abuse.


    So, until and unless we develop some foolproof way of sifting the Lanzas of the world out of all the eccentric Cousin Bobs, we’re left with waiting for them to self-identify by attempting something violent and being ready to defend ourselves and neutralize them when they do. That means meeting force with equal or greater force. And that means guns. The reality is we have, and are going to continue to have, armed crazy people around anywhere and everywhere. We need armed sane people anywhere and everywhere to stop them.


    btw, there’s an excellent (if rather long) post on this topic on Larry Correia’s blog: , followed by an interesting (if even longer) discussion in the comments.

  • Guns don’t kill people, video games do – LaPierre
    Conservatives who argue that a total ban wouldn’t lower the homicide rate are being ridiculous – your buddy McArdle
    100K schools * 50 years * 100K salary / 100 deaths = $5 billion/potential life saved – People who can do math

  • Everyone knows the way you express love for your kids is to send them to an unguarded and weakly secured killing pen….

  • The NRA doesn’t speak for gun owners.  In many cases, they have been complicit in crafting “pragmatic” compromises which result in “moderate” gun control laws.  This press conference was about taking the heat off that organization, not about standing up on principle for your rights.
    How many times in the past four years did you hear Democrats and their ilk mocking any conservatives, libertarians, or others who warned of Obama’s intent to try to pass strict gun control?  We were ridiculed as being paranoid.  The “Fast and Furious”/Gunwalker story was the product of the fevered dreams of “crazy militia types”, according to the likes of Rachel Maddow.  There was nothing to it.  Why, most major networks had spent at most a couple minutes, sometimes nothing, in the months leading up to the Attorney General being held in contempt of Congress.  Besides, Obama had never shown any strong intent to take away gun rights.
    Vanderboegh and Codrea saw this one coming.  Scan through their archives to compare today’s feeding frenzy with their warnings.

  • As was previously written, why not train and arm teachers, principals
    and/or other staff as Texas has done and Utah has done for some years. No added
    expenses other than licensing. Some firearms experts train such people for free;
    CCW in Florida costs $105 plus finger printing at $10. Several state
    legislatures are looking at arming school officials. A long post on this and
    other gun issues can be found here.

    If school districts want to have guards for a period of time until the
    month or so it takes to obtain the training and a CCW, fine, but why spend 5
    billion plus for something that those who are presently entrusted to safeguard
    our children, voluntarily increase their ability to do so.

    • I think this is the preferred method.  But I wouldn’t force anyone to carry a gun if they are not willing to do so.  So plan B for a school where the teachers aren’t willing to step up, would be default to an armed guard.  Or transfer a teacher willing to use a gun to the school.
      And personally I think that there should be a pool of teachers who might be armed, with only 2 or 3 actually armed on a rotating and secret basis.  That way no one can start their spree by getting the drop on single teacher or guard including other school personal.

  • Armed guards will be expensive. Armed guards will be more useful if there are tall fences around the perimeter of the school yard with every window and door secure. Turning every school in America into a secure facility, think police station secure,  seems to be really over the top considering how few school shootings there actually are. While many schools have locked front doors, the students still go outside for recess. There are still exits which are propped open for taking out trash, or windows opened for a breeze. Any entry way with windows would need modification. Didn’t the Newton shooter shoot his way through their door?
    Finding volunteer teachers to get initial and on going training will be much more effective and less expensive than single purpose armed guards. An armed guard is “one”. Having 10-20% of the teachers and staff armed has far greater potential for stopping a shooting.
    One of Adam Lanza’s former principals said Adam wasn’t teased, as they all knew how unstable he was, and the staff made doubly sure teasing didn’t happen. There are Federal laws about identifying troubled students and getting them the help they need. In Arizona the Sheriff knew Laughner was troubled. Major Nidal Hassan, the treasonous murderer from Fort Hood sent up all sorts of ignored warnings. Pursuing what needs to be done to identify and institutionalize mentally ill people might be even more productive than arming teachers.

  • This idiot pegs the needle on the cliche-0-tron…
    One of the things that’s always struck me about the Collective…
    mass fatalities are about the only thing that moves them.
    Single, individual people…many of them perfectly innocent…die every day, and they are never the focus of one damned word from the Beastly Day.

  • The larger issue, and one that has sort of been ignored on BOTH sides is that maybe, just maybe, the NRA should be a bit more honest about their intentions. Angry lefties are yelling for a ban on assault weapons (whatever they think that even means), the Fox News crowd sees any talk about this as a direct threat from Obama to take away every single firearm they own (which is equally wrongheaded, and you’re smart enough to know that) but again, think about what we’re getting in a lather over: the NRA. For all the good they do on the safety and training level, keep this in mind- they are a lobbying group. Their job is to represent the companies that pay them to foster a culture where more guns can be sold. That’s it. LaPierre was about as inelegant as possible in presenting his points, but the fact that anyone would ever look to the NRA to provide guidance of any sort, especially when America is at its reactionary worst, is ludicrous. The NRA is not some sort of right-wing national conscience, they’re here to make sure gun companies continue to reap huge profits, just as the coal lobby keeps coal mines open, the ethanol lobby keeps subsidized corn growing, and so on. It’s worth keeping that in mind when considering the things they say.

    • I love it what a boob condescends!  How many million members…and rising…does this outfit have?
      What is your definition of “grass-roots”…???

    • Assault weapons today,
      Remaining ‘long guns’ tomorrow,
      handguns the day after.
      None of the banning will work on criminals.  And handguns are where most of the deaths by guns are.  So its hard to take AWB seriously as anything but an emotional grab for the easiest fruit, first.  Because once you ban them, almost everything else is just semantics as demonstrated by the relative flexibility of the term to politicians.

    • “the Fox News crowd sees any talk about this as a direct threat from Obama to take away every single firearm they own (which is equally wrongheaded, and you’re smart enough to know that)”
      “Their job is to represent the companies that pay them to foster a culture where more guns can be sold.”
      We are also smart enough to recognize idiotic exaggerations and lunatic conspiracy theories.

    • Let me put things in context for you.  Lets assume that the sell of “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines are banned and then we have another mass shooting involving either an assault weapon and or high capacity magazine.  The evolution of the current line of thinking is to say we didn’t do enough by banning the sell we need to classify them as a class 3 weapon under NFA and require registration.  Then another mass shooting happens and the thinking evolves again and the decision is to confiscate. Now despite banning, registration and confiscation another mass shooting occurs and the problem still hasn’t been addressed.

    • You out yorself as an idiot when you claim the NRA exists to help gun companies.

  • The problem is that the Left’s whole objective is to ban guns.  Banning guns, population control, is the requited end state.
    The Obama Administration is not concerned about dead children or effective deterrent or putting away the seriously mentally ill before they hurt themselves or others.  Fast & Furious was an attempt to force a treaty with Mexico that infringed upon Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.  Treaty obligations supersede our Constitutional rights.
    As Vladimir Lenin said, “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”  Fortunately, Americans own 300,000,000 guns and are not likely to surrender them.

    • “The problem is that the Left’s whole objective is to ban guns.”
      I remember several years ago when the Brady bunch was declaiming, with teary eyes and furrowed brow, that their goals were limited to passage of this one piece of common-sense gun legislation (I forget which one it was). “Is that too much to ask?” (to quote John Lovitz). Of course they are still in business, asking for just one more slice of the salami, just one more piece of common-sense gun legislation to protect the children. And I am sure they will stay in business until every gun is prohibited or every possible dollar is milked from the sacred cause, whichever comes first.

  • And in all of this none of these tremendous assholes wants to discuss the laws we have on the books against MURDERING people, and how effective THOSE seem to be.  I gather that would spark an obvious conversation.
    Come on guys, we all know when guns aren’t ‘going off by themselves” and blowing holes in things when we’re not looking, they’re talking to us, making us DO things….
    they sit like a malevolent spirit in the bedside table, in the closet, in the gun safe or the gun cabinet, and they whisper to us…
    They whisper “go kill people, go kill people”.
    So does that knife rack with all the shiny steel blades in the kitchen, or the chemicals under the sink and in the garage.
    The fire does too, hear it?   And those oh so innocent baseball bats, or the 2 ton imported German motorized battering rams sitting in the drive way, don’t get me started.

    • Using the same “logic” applied to an ASSAULT, scary, killer high magazine clip thingy, we should confiscate all cars capable of driving 100 mph.

      “Nobody needs a car like that…it has no legitimate purpose.”

  • It’s always incremental with the gun bigots and hoplophobes: “Just one more law, is that too much to ask?”  I’ll borrow some words:
    “Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

    I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.

    I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.