Two Dozen House Republicans propose plan for concealed weapons in school zones
This doesn't go anywhere near far enough, but the notion that people could object to off-duty or retired police from carrying guns in school zones is very difficult for me to understand. Is there any evidence that police with guns will endanger others? Seriously? From The Hill newspaper:
Two dozen House Republicans proposed legislation on Thursday that would allow off-duty and retired police officers to carry concealed weapons in school zones to help protection children from attacks.
Supporters of the Police Officers Protecting Children Act, H.R. 2541, say the bill would give schools the ability to seek this added layer of protection from random acts of violence, like the one that claimed the lives of 20 children last year in Newtown, Conn.
"This common-sense bill addresses a question on all of our minds: how do we keep our children safe?," said Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), the lead sponsor of the bill. "These dedicated men and women of law enforcement should not be barred from providing an extra layer of security for our schools just because they are off the clock or have retired from active service to their communities." . . .
Labels: GunFreeZone, schoolsecurity
posted by John Lott at 1:55 AM
3 Comments:
"Is there any evidence that police with guns will endanger others? Seriously?"
What, aside from David Codrea's "Only Ones" series and Radley Balko's articles on an increasingly militarized police force?
That aside, though, this not only doesn't go far enough, it goes in the wrong direction.
It once again privileges police, giving positive feedback to the above trends.
And worse, cops are trained to see everyone as suspects. That will be reinforced by the nature of the children themselves, with their well-known lack of judgement, especially among the rebellious teen set.
No, what we need are citizen-teachers armed against outside threats.
We do not need to teach children that they are safest when being watched over by uniformed armed guards. That is simply not the case.
The objection is not to off-duty and/or retired cops allowed to carry in school zones, it's to ONLY off-duty and/or retired cops allowed to carry in school zones. We have enough data (some provided by you!) that regular, every day citizens, especially those with carry permits, are at least as good in a situation that requires violent response as the police are, barring necessity for massive backup. Further, they're much less willing to be unnecessarily aggressive when a situation doesn't actually call for aggressiveness. Even further, if they ARE required to shoot, non-cops are much less likely to perforate innocent bystanders.
Too many cops today are ex-military or military wannabes. The job of a soldier is to break things and kill people. Not a criticism, our soldiers are better at it than almost any other nations, God bless 'em. But is that the kind of mindset we want "guarding" our children?
I'm 100% in favor of having armed personnel protecting our kids when they are in school. I have a few thoughts on this issue.
1) Any stable, properly-selected and trained armed person is better than none.
2) Cops, retired or off-duty, in uniform or not, aren't necessarily more proficient with firearms than civilians. In many jurisdictions, LE budgets are being cut, and the cuts begin with decreased training, and decreased training means less practice on the firing line than many civilians have. Plus, many civilians spend their own money to improve their skills by attending classes offered by any of a number of quality firearms training facilities.
3) Whoever is to carry — be it a teacher, administrator, janitor or some additional staff (like a retired or off duty cop) should be as unobtrusive and difficult-to-identify as possible. (To be otherwise is to be the first target.)
And there should be no mention whatsoever of the number of such people at a given school.
4) The person(s) in question must be well-trained in the safe handling of firearms and understand under what circumstances and when it is appropriate to reach for it.
This may seem to be a high bar, but, IMO, for many reasons, it can't be otherwise
Post a Comment
<< Home