Pro: Armed school guards are our best bet to stop future Newtowns
OAKLAND, CALIF. EDITOR’S NOTE: The writer is addressing the question, “Is putting armed guards in the nation’s schools a good idea?”
When he heard police arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a “gun free zone,” Adam Lanza ended his murder spree by killing himself.
Days earlier, in Portland, Ore., Jacob Roberts had slain two at the Clackamas Town Center mall. When a licensed gun owner pointed a pistol at him, Roberts likewise killed himself.
James Holmes murdered 12 at the Aurora Century movie theater in Colorado, another “gun free zone” that prohibited armed security personnel. Holmes surrendered when police showed up.
Rampaging gunmen seek victims at places where they expect no immediate resistance. They continue their evil deeds until they are no longer in control due to the intervention of armed defenders. Then, they typically seek to remain in control by taking their own lives.
The tragic Newtown, Conn., school massacre was instantly politicized by calls to ban “assault weapons” and magazines holding more than 10 cartridges. Violent video games were deplored, but there were no pre-written bills to ban them. Mental illness was a hot topic, but no firm solutions were offered. Increasing police presence at schools was not in the cards during the media-driven frenzy.
Virginia’s Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell suggested that not only police, but armed school officials who so chose could be trained to stop aggressors. A loud chorus responded against “shootouts” in schools. Perhaps unopposed executions are better.
For now, consider just increasing the law enforcement presence.
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?
Shall we live in a fantasy world and kid ourselves into thinking that we can simply pass new laws and such tragedies won’t happen again?
In the days after Newtown, school authorities nationwide notified parents that police were patrolling schools more often and that security was being tightly monitored.
The Washington Post, openly advocating a gun ban, derided the NRA proposal—a verboten topic, apparently, for the nationwide “conversation.” Curiously, the Post then published an article noting that police had stepped up patrols at schools in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia and that some schools, particularly in D.C., had permanent security guards. Law enforcement presence is focused mostly at urban middle schools and high schools, not at elementary schools—doubtlessly to control drugs and gang violence.
So the issue is not whether armed security personnel should be present at schools—nationwide, some 17,000 sworn officers already serve in schools, according to the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing—but whether their presence should be increased to protect against the inevitable copy-cat killer.
No guarantee exists that the presence of an armed officer would stop the next disaster. But it would give the potential victims a chance.
Remember, the massacre at Columbine High School, a “gun free zone,” took place after passage of the federal “assault weapon” ban. The killers didn’t use the banned guns; they didn’t need them.
Somebody intent on mass murder has many weapons from which to choose: fertilizer-based explosives were used to kill 168 in Oklahoma City; box cutters were the initial weapon used by the 9/11 hijackers who left 2,977 dead.
Murder and mayhem are not abolished by banning possession of selected physical objects by law-abiding individuals. No “conversation” is needed to know that armed security can protect schools, just as they protect courts and other public buildings, airline travelers, banks, and even convenience stores.
Stephen P. Halbrook is a research fellow with The Independent Institute, 100 Swan Way, Oakland, Calif. 94621-1428; website: www.independent.org.


Jan 26, 2013 at 8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
"...there also was an "assault weapons ban" when Klyebold and Harris killed 13 in columbine..."
All the Columbine guns and ammo were purchased legally.
Jan 25, 2013 at 6:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Columbine had a Deputy at the school when the shooting started. The answer has nothing to do with guns, either gun control or more cops/armed guards at schools. The real downfall is our societies view and dealing of people with mental illness. Until a person has committed a crime, they often are unable to gain access to affordable mental healthcare. ON top of that we view anyone with a mental disorder or disease as weak or crazy, which pushes people away from getting treatment so they aren't labeled.
Jan 25, 2013 at 6:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Woodchuck, there also was an "assault weapons ban" when Klyebold and Harris killed 13 in columbine-how'd did that law workout?
Jan 25, 2013 at 5:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Excellent article. Well written. Sound points of logic.
Jan 25, 2013 at 3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Columbine had armed guards. How'd that work out for them?
Jan 25, 2013 at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
The problem was evident in the recent Miss America contest. One of the contestants was asked a question regarding armed guards in schools.
Her answer, "Violence should not be fought violence but with education and understanding."
Of course this was the politically correct answer, and has no connection to reality.
Jan 25, 2013 at 1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Janesville Now,
Israel is a perpetual war zone? Who are they at war with? I guess you've never been to Israel.
Israel is as much a "war zone" as Tijuana/US Border is a war zone.
Jan 25, 2013 at 12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Seems strange to reference Israel, a perpetual war-zone, but conveniently ignore how all the other developed countries are 'doin it'.
Jan 24, 2013 at 7:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nra arguments for the most part are such silliness that they should be embarrassed. "Removing guns from innocent civilians will do nothing to prevent mass killings". Most mass killers are innocent civilians until the start killing. By the way I am a gun owner.
Jan 24, 2013 at 6:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
swansong-
Studies show-that more guns = less crime. Please read John Lott and then produce 20 years of data as he has. I guess Newtown CT did not have a police department and Adam Lanza was a stable young lad with a bad haircut?
Of course its easier to charge guilt by association as the reason why armed guards in Aurora colorado or Columbine high school were ineffective.
Removing guns from innocent civilians will do nothing to prevent mass killings.
Then again, 40,000 people die every year on the nations highways-if Obama waved his magic wand and required drivers to drive 5 miles per hour-this would save most if not all of the needless deaths that occur on the highway. Is this good social policy? Afterall Obama said "if it will save 1 life".....
Signed,
We must do something....
Jan 24, 2013 at 6:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
An opinion piece from a right-wing, conservative libertarian "think tank" (which won't disclose its donors - the NRA perhaps?), written by a buddy of Glenn Beck, which, surprise, surprise, misrepresents the truth. Armed guards will prevent mass killings? He ignores the facts: Columbine had an armed guard, Virginia Tech had a police department, Ft. Hood was a military base. And studies also show that more guns are not the answer (like the one described at http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/16/you...). Of course the gun makers behind the NRA want even more guns. The real question is - why does this paper publish this kind of nonsense?
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.