January 17th, 2013
05:00 AM ET

My View: More school resource officers, more safe school communities

Courtesy NASROBy Kevin Quinn, Special to CNN

Editor’s note: Kevin Quinn is a 17-year law enforcement veteran, the president of the National Association of School Resource Officers and a school resource officer in the largest high school in Arizona.

This week, Schools of Thought publishes perspectives on school security.

(CNN) – Ever since the heart-wrenching shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, I’ve been hearing from parents who want to know what I’m doing to keep their kids safe. As a school resource officer in a high school, I’m here to answer their questions and take action as necessary. We’re all thinking the same thing: Don’t let it happen here.

School resource officers have been around for decades, but many hadn’t heard of them before the past few weeks. We’re not security guards or even extra, hired police officers who “stand guard” in front of a school. School resource officers, known as SROs, are fully sworn law enforcement officers, armed, in uniform and assigned to a school full-time, just as an officer might be assigned a neighborhood. We have all the same training as other police officers, and often more. We know how to deal with situations alone or with just a partner, or how to work within a community of teenagers. The National Association of School Resource Officers estimates there are about 10,000 around the country, mostly in junior high and high schools.

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama called for more emergency planning and school resource officers in our nation’s schools – a move the National Association of School Resource Officers applauds. The number of school resource officers declined recently because of tight budgets. Some areas split the cost between the school districts and local governments or use grant funding to employ SROs. I’m not into politics. I don’t care how it gets done. But I know that well-trained school resource officers make schools safer.

We do it by working diligently with community stakeholders. The successful school resource officer program is a collaborative effort by certified law enforcement officers, educators, students, parents and the community to offer educational programs in the schools, reduce crime, drug abuse and violence - all of which contribute to a safe school environment.

We are immediate first responders for any and all critical incidents on campus, whether it’s an intruder, a student fight or a health emergency. Having a police officer on the campus can eliminate several minutes of response time when seconds count. I know the school like the back of my hand, and if there’s a problem, I don’t need a map. I can respond in the time it takes me to get down the hall.

We are part of kids’ educations. Often times, SROs are invited to be guest speakers in classrooms, where they provide law-related education, not only to students, but to staff members, parents and other community stakeholders. Officers teach juveniles about the importance of the justice system, respecting others and their property and explain law enforcement career opportunities.

We are a liaison between the school and police community. We not only enforce state and city laws, but provide campus security and intelligence. Our ultimate goal is to bridge the gap between adults and juveniles by developing rapport. It takes time for kids to build trust, but once school resource officers establish themselves in a community, kids are willing to come forward and report things, send an e-mail, leave a voicemail, come by the office. They’ve seen what’s in the news, and they want a safe school, too.

We are informal counselors who work to build positive relationships with adolescents, which reduces crime, drug abuse and violence in their community. Students will come to us seeking academic and legal advice on teen issues their parents and teachers might never hear about - parent-child conflicts, dating violence or social network conflicts. If they know a resource officer they’ve seen every day in the hallway, it’s not taboo to be seen getting a snack from my candy jar and talking.

It sounds like a joke, but it’s true: Sometimes, near the end of the year, the seniors will run their senior pranks past me. If we do this, what’s going to happen? Is it legal or not legal? What would the principal do? Kids have to be pretty darn comfortable to do that, and you’re not going to get that by showing up for a few weeks after a major tragedy.

School resource officers are like a personal cop for the kids, and their families.

Parents will often call about issues at home, such as divorce and custody battles, when they need a gut check, or someone to explain how something works. They’re part of the school community, and their lives can have an affect on the students, and the school. I’m here for them, too.

You often don’t realize the impact you’ve had till it’s over, sometimes months or years down the line. I have former students working in my police department, kids who grew up seeing cops in a positive light and were inspired to make it their career. I don’t sugarcoat anything with students, and I’ve had plenty of parents thank me for dealing with their kids the way I did. One student I know had returned to school after being kicked out - he walked off the graduation stage and said, “Officer Quinn, thank you. I wouldn’t be here if not for you.”

The best days are when you have fun with the kids in the cafeteria, when everything is moving forward on a positive level, when there are no problems. In the month since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, it’s humbling to realize I’ve got almost 3,600 students at my school, and thousands of parents relying on me. They all trust their kids are going to go home safe at the end of the day. Because I’m here, I’m going to do everything I can to make that happen.

The opinions expressed are solely those of Kevin Quinn.

Read more perspectives on school security, and share your thoughts in the comments section.

soundoff (326 Responses)
  1. movarth

    Now where's the voice of reason disagreeing with the president?

    Must be us.

    January 22, 2013 at 10:41 am |
  2. Cheap Neopoints

    I simply couldn't depart your web site before suggesting that I actually enjoyed the standard information a person provide on your guests? Is going to be again ceaselessly in order to inspect new posts

    January 21, 2013 at 4:52 pm |
  3. Input Welcome

    Working Draft: Re: Letter to the President

    NOTE: Your constructive input is welcome.

    We, the people are deeply concerned about the following, which we request, as we the people, your immediate attention to if at all possible. The reason that we make this immediate request is due to the very real concern for the safety, well-being, and protection from harm of mental patients of all ages, religions, nationalities, gender, race, and ethnicity, etc., and disabilities in light of the recent tragedies that has placed a huge amount of blame on autistic persons, and mandates signed by you that could be construed to violate the rights of the mentally ill and their families.

    Historically, the mentally ill have been treated poorly in this country, much like those whom the revered civil rights leaders of our great country challenged all to provide equal opportunity, education, rights, judicial access and fairness of courts, legal systems, education, schools, jobs, housing, health care, etc.. Today, we are asking you to do the same for the mentally ill and their families, communities, and society as a whole (as all could be disabled from mental illness at some point in their lives – and historically – most are).

    While the power and politics of the system within which the responsibility for mental health practices, procedures, and policies encompasses many whom benefit and thrive, many of the patients and much of society are made to suffer the greatest of burdens and sorrow because of it.

    There are many reasons why so many suffer at the hands of the current mental health system, as you may well know. It is widely considered to be a system of care that is very deeply flawed by those whom are aware of the true realities of the way things really are in the mental health system, and/or the reasons and reasoning as to why the system is so flawed. To ask the patients to suffer through not only their illness, healing, recovery, and management of their illness at the same time that they must also suffer at the hands of this deeply flawed system places an inordinately undue and unhealthy burden and suffering on not only them, but on the whole of society as well.

    President Obama, the most obvious need that is not being considered in the last few weeks national affairs, in which you have so immediately made sweeping changes to the rights bestowed upon all of this great nation of independently minded souls, was one of the deep rooted anger that exists in the USA today, be it toward the mentally ill or gun rights issues or whatever. To single either one or whatever out for discrimination in signed action that will, in essence, limit the future and rights of every single citizen of this great nation, only serves to invite further victimization, discrimination and prejudice against all deemed to be or made to be in any group of similarly classified individuals. As outlined in the laws of this land, which you have sworn to uphold, and to which your pledge we honor as you do ours, as a united 'we the people' governed under a respected and trusted unifying law of the land, we humbly ask you to reconsider your recent actions under the same wisdom you value by your honor chosen mentors, and to whom, we thoughtfully agree to their mission of freedom and equality for all.

    The restrictions you have placed on the rights of the mentally ill are a closing of the door to the rights you honor with your pledge to defend, honor, and uphold for ALL citizens of the USA. We question the possibility now allowed that many might fall prey to those whom may wish to exploit and / or harm those with disabilities and related, or as ill guided control, or weapon of discrimination and prejudicial policies, practices, and procedures against any made to fall into this category of citizens or deemed to be in this category of citizen. This is now a great burden to all, and places many at further risk of harm, discrimination and prejudice, as you could well imagine given the need for revered leaders and movements throughout the ages.

    It is hard to imagine how banning guns can be such a problem, yet forcing the banning of guns on those at the mercy of a mental health system that is not prepared to deal fairly with such power to control, discriminate, and cause harm, exploitation, nor the loss of protected rights throughout the entire system of education, judicial, employment, military, health care, mental health care, security systems and officers, society as a whole and as individuals, families, communities, churches, non-profit groups, universities, the agencies set up to regulate all that can cause mental illness in our foods, water, medicine, practices, procedures, and policies, and ALL can be and ARE AT MERCY of this type illness and treatment without legal representation and supports, and a fair and equal judicial system, that this could truly be ok.

    Therefore, we the people, request humbly and with post haste to amend to these signed actions provisions that will allow for the furthering of reasoning throughout all levels of the greatest government system put in place by the people, for the people, and for which we are all pledged to honor and protect and defend as USA citizens of this great and wonderful land of which we know, that you, our chosen leader, will be able to see the wisdom of your forefathers and revered leaders and mentors as being the only true way for our nation to be for the people, by the people. Thank you and God Bless you in your leadership and wisdom as you guide this grand nation through four more years of being a nation built on the wisdom of many.

    Sincerely and with Deepest Respect,

    'We the People', USA
    January 20, 2013

    January 21, 2013 at 2:46 am |
    • Tony

      So are you saying he amends the orders to allow mentally ill people to buy guns?

      And IMHO the overall tone cups the balls a little too much. Just saying.

      January 22, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
      • wtp rep

        ummm ok
        i am trying to say that people with mental illness are going to have a tougher time than they did a few days ago now – not sure how to change the tone on it – how specifically would you? give me an example from the letter ...

        January 22, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
      • we the people rep

        ummm ok
        i am trying to say that people with mental illness are going to have a tougher time than they did a few days ago – and that i am not sure if this is what the prez intended – however putting more strain and disdain on that community is not in societies nor the persons legal rights – not sure how to change the tone on it – how specifically would you? give me an example from the letter ... if you could.

        January 22, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
      • Tony

        I would just ease up on the a$$-kissing... "Guide us with wisdom" etc. I honestly don't know what your letter is asking, and that's not good. It needs to be more of an executive summary: one paragraph, two tops with a few bullet points (no pun intended) getting the highlights across.

        I doubt there is a good chance he'd read it anyway, but it can't hurt. You're doing more than most people in these comment sections.

        January 22, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
      • wtp rep

        as you might notice in the date of letter – it was written at same time he took second term office – i was mimicking the pomp and cermony of the occassion with my overly USA patriotic references – cuz thought that's how i thought a civil rights speech would sound at that time – of course you are right tho in it not making much sense at any other time.

        my dad told me that once – keep it short cuz they won't read it anyway – that kinda editing might take a while for me ...

        thanks for the input – if you have suggestions – you are welcome to give editing trys – i'm a tad rusty on the matter – and don't have much confidence at this point ...

        January 22, 2013 at 10:05 pm |
      • wtp rep

        and yes – i think mentally ill should have rights to purchase guns – just with mental illness alone – does not equal no guns – that is not realistic – nor safe for mentally ill – WAY too much chance for victimination there to anyone from anyone – whether mentally ill or not

        January 22, 2013 at 10:31 pm |
      • wtp rep

        there ARE cops and veterans with guns who are currently working with guns
        those with ptsd – if they know they have ptsd – then they are safer perhaps than ones who have guns and don't know they have ptsd – or develop ptsd suddenly – i guess really understanding ptsd is a priority for these type people – in themselves and others – and they cannot expect others with ptsd to not have symptoms if they don't – yet the should and might have the intelligence to not harm others with ptsd if they were much more well trained in this area of knowledge to not harm mental patients – and not make people mental with their actions

        January 22, 2013 at 10:54 pm |
      • wtp rep

        that goes for school people with guns too
        they have to truly know and understand ptsd – otherwise they could do unintentional harm and cause more ptsd
        so – what good does it do to marginilize mental illness even more?
        now – instead of acknowledging ptsd and growing wiser in this area and others that arise – people will not ask for help – will not get training they need out of fear of the illness as it is treated in society – instead of mastery of it – and will not deal with it in healthy manners in others or self ...
        ptsd is most common mental illness – and least understood nor trained – why is that do you think?

        January 22, 2013 at 11:12 pm |
      • wtp rep

        If you are familiar with the politics of mental health in USA – you will know that this is a serious step for them towards more control of we the people that perhaps we the people do not realize yet – yet they are well aware of their own plans – so – i question them – in the name of we the people – as i am tired of the fear mongering since 2001 – as is everyone else – except for those whom make money or poitics off of it perhaps. I just want them to stop – now – as enough is enough

        January 22, 2013 at 11:29 pm |
      • wtp rep

        so now you have all these kids and parents who are at risk for ptsd – and still no well known knowledge on how society can humanely deal with ptsd – so now you have many more at risk from the harm that the mental patients in the current system have had to endure for eons – and the system is still the same or worse – yet all of the sudden the need for understanding and not more harm to anyone – especially to the patients, former, current, and future – is desperately needed ... that's all ... i do not think he thought through the consequences of his hasty actions well enough – do you?

        January 23, 2013 at 12:11 am |
      • wtp rep

        he has essentially made it a crime to have a mental illness with his hasty nonprocedural oriented decisions – and taken away the rights of all – even if only many at this point in time – which he says we are supposed to accept – and i say no – not if any more harmed – victims have rights for tort action now against gov. for going against law to cause harm – does that make sense?
        you cannot have one set of laws for them – and one for we the people ...
        we the people follow their lead – as their lead is what they deem us to follow
        so ... i think he should realize this immediately – and change his decision to include reasoned procedures for change as outlined in the law of the land ... like for all others ... that is all.
        as for guns in schools – i thought it was a gun free zone – most wouldn't want to send their kids into the wild wild west every day – that could get tiring real quick

        January 23, 2013 at 12:35 am |
      • wtp rep

        How can it work for sherriffs to go out and try to take guns from those whom may get catagorized in this classification of persons – yet not take them away from those whom are not? Are the sherriffs just looken for a fight – i mean – i cannot imagine how that would work very well – for sherriffs – or others ...

        why stir a hornets nest? that hornet would never harm you if you left it alone ...

        January 23, 2013 at 1:45 am |
      • wtp rep

        it seems that the current actions at the hands of the prez. only serves to reinforce the use of guns and violence – instead of counseling, mentoring, sound mental health care and guidance, accommodation, and mediation – which all require trust and communication, acceptance and tolerance – which now will not predominate the atmosphere as much as will fear, mistrust, and further marginalization, categorization, and victimization.
        why is that? why is there so much division in this country? Is there a purpose for that? And if so, why would any one group willfully give up their right to defend themselves – especially when so many are against them?

        January 23, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
      • wtp rep

        still trying to figure out shortest way to encompass thoughts from these posts – written from an inclusive view point as advocate for the mentally ill and similar:

        right now – thoughts just highlighted:


        of everything that has happened with sandy hook – the only thing NOT made different truly – as there has already existed security guards and gun hardy persons – and discrimination, prejudice, exploitation, and marginalization of the mentally ill or challenged – is increased understanding and awareness of the need for inclusive training, understanding, and education in regards to mental illness – for all. Yet – even if this did occur as would seem an optimal thing to do in settings geared toward education – the people controlling the delivery of the education have to not have pharma and co. feeding their words and the souls of society – or all continue to lose – as they have and do.

        January 24, 2013 at 2:42 am |
      • wtp rep

        Even with the acknowledgement that pharma. and co. have caused a great deal of harm to the very structure of USA politics, government, military, and all in society in one way or another inherent in the way the systems that they exist are dominated from the core with the same infusion of corruption and deception of the populace – the individual or groups of individuals who may or have suffered the most from these adverse practices cannot have further discrimination and hatred placed on them and society expect that this will solve the issues – when truly – the redirection of education for all is what is really needed – and not further discrimination of the fact that ALL have mental health – and ALL are affected within the systems which they live.

        January 24, 2013 at 3:16 am |
      • wtp rep

        Just more thoughts:

        if you look at today's great civil rights leaders, and then think that civil rights lawyers within their organizations would assist in enforcing civil rights for all – especially for the mentally ill and this categorization of individuals in all time really – yet especially now – then think where their lawyers interests lie – and realize that they are educated in same system that has always discriminated against mental illness – then you see that mental illness is highly discriminated against in all levels of society. Is there an affective troop of lawyers that exists for the mentally ill whose most current form of treatment is the privatized penal system??? The answer is a resounding NO! So – why would anyone think that THEY can survive in a system so skewed in its discrimination of the very thing that all have in common – which is mental health – in a system that does not support it for ALL? I think it might take getting past the chaos of the last few weeks and input from many sources – including the patients themselves and not just their pharma. and co. paid and skewed reps – to have decisions not grounded in further prejudice – as it seems is the tone of the current actions of the administration toward a classification of illness that cost the government a great deal of money – which is always the source of most decisions – that and power and control of the minds of the many.

        January 24, 2013 at 4:38 am |
      • wtp commission rep1

        Dear CNN,

        Is it within your means to host a "We the People Sandy Hook Commission" Opinion Page?
        This would provide a much needed additional source of input highlighting how the citizens of this great nation truly see the issues and solutions to these issues that the Sandy Hook Commission will take into regard in their official findings and reports?

        Can Someone from CNN answer here?
        Or is there a specific person in CNN to make these requests to make them magically appear in print?
        Idea: Have someone write an opinion on the Sandy Hook Commission and ask for specific input on specific topics – it would very interesting indeed to see true responses from we the people, USA.

        Thank you very kindly for your service of freedom of speech and other values of freedom and rights protected for ALL,


        "We the People" Commission Representative, USA
        January 24, 2013

        January 24, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • Cosmin


      January 26, 2013 at 8:25 am |
      • wtp commission rep2

        We are a nation that values freedom and power and our rights as citizens to defend ourselves.
        all americans do not value all guns – for various reasons – if you read the news – the facts are there
        sorry we make you so sick ... our fate is that we make ourselves sick as well sometimes
        so – hey – you can now officially feel vindicated in your wrath
        thanks for sharing

        January 26, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
      • Tony

        You sir, are an idiot. Congratulations

        January 28, 2013 at 10:01 am |
  4. dan

    I propose that our veterans when returning home from active duty be given first priority to jobs as either maintenance workers or janitors at schools and allow them to conceal carry if they wish. Now that will do two things, first it will put the question in the back of any mentally unstable person's mind " is Joe the janitor packing heat". And also I'm sure that returning veterans would love the idea of having first priority at these jobs, if they want to be teachers that's cool too, whatever.
    but I don't want them to be affiliated with the police in any way. I am very very very much against the idea of a police state. I hate hate hate the idea of acclimating our children to a police state. Now if a compromise must be reached then I feel that this is the least of all evils even knowing that this idea tends to allow for picking favorites in the workplace by government, and since our school systems are ran by the government I feel very concerned giving them any more power at all because they always screw it up. But this idea does not cost any more because they will simply just be filing the positions that are already in place.

    P.S. have you ever seen or heard of a messy barracks?

    January 20, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
    • Deandre Owens

      I propose veterans stay the hell out of schools. Pick up jobs, where they aren't armed, and are out of the role of authoritarian. I didn't like cops in my school, when I was in grades how, high school. Or college. Does nothing to keep me safe not in the slightest. But the truth is, cops will jump on anything to get more hours.

      January 20, 2013 at 7:09 pm |
    • Joe from CT, not Lieberman

      Considering how mentally and emotionally messed up a lot of our returning veterans are, do you really want to put someone who may snap thinking he is coming under attack if the relief valve on a boiler lifts in charge of security in our elementary schools?

      January 21, 2013 at 11:41 am |
      • thoughts

        I personally think that this same veteran might have a lesser chance of getting help if they need it now that the stigma involved with mental illness has increased dramatically without valid guidance for a lawful, healthy, and rational approach to the true issues in a way that upholds equality and freedom of rights for all – the ones the veteran just fought for. I think the mentally ill have come under attack unrightly – when the system of mental health delivery and those whom thrive from its existence in its entirety – which are not the patients nor society whom are now further victimized instead of helped, and placed at much greater risk for harm, discrimination, and prejudice.

        January 21, 2013 at 2:15 pm |
      • thoughts

        what i am trying to say is that the one percent wanted this – and now they are getting what they want – as usual
        and the rest of 'us' will get what we got, and like it ... and if they have their way ... or else ...
        as usual

        January 21, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
      • Matt from CT now in TX

        Us vets don't just "snap". Most vets with PTSD are not dangerous unless they have NOT been seen and assesed by a mental health provider. I get tired of people think that someday I might just "snap". There are tell signs long before PTSD can rear its ugly head and make vets do something terrible. By stamping everyone with PTSD as a danger, it permanently puts a stigma on people seeking mental health treatment, and that will do way more damage than allowing someone with PTSD a firearm, who seeks out counseling and treatment. They key is to not discourage treatment.

        January 24, 2013 at 9:31 am |
      • thoughts

        Your experience with PTSD is unique in that it is not the same experience with mental health care and PTSD in all forms of society have dealth with to date. Techniques like Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) are not well known to the general populace, as the pharma. and co. have dominated mental health for so long now.
        I think the thing that got to me most is what you mention as the key to mental health – this is now essentially destroyed.
        this should have further input for true value to the american people and for All.
        more of what the military now is learning would help the general populace perhaps more than anything else if they are truly learning how to deal with PTSD successfully without meds.

        January 24, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
      • thoughts

        The current judicial theory on the street it seems has involved shoot first – ask questions if they survive – yet if they die you free the system from their presence (something like that it seems). Most people see it that way i imagine – that is why you have so many who are so adament and keep saying NO guns in schools – even on the security guards ...
        most people see things the way they really are – they are simply to afraid to say anything – or too aware that saying something doesn't do much good ... and they might raise the ire of those with the guns ... and in control of mental health.
        i am not sure if the prez. is trying to destroy the mental health system for the money or cuz it does more harm than good.
        what do you think?

        January 25, 2013 at 2:08 am |
      • thoughts

        just thinking:

        you have to understand the politics and money and power of mental health in order to understand what the prez. might have in mind:

        1. newer methods that do not involve meds ARE currently coming to light to help the mentall ill.
        2. these methods cost money – and lose money for the pharma and co.
        3. the entire system has to have retraining and requidance – since all have not learned new ways – as they are all stuck in old ways – even in universities that teach new students ...
        4. these universities thrive off of pharma. and co. and exploiting mental health accussed (patients) for research
        5. they make no money from pharma. and co. if they teach new ways
        6. so ... destroy mental health now so new ways not learned nor taught
        7. new ways can also cause harm if not practiced properly ... so prudence is needed
        8. new privitized penal systems exploit mentally accussed now for research – due to loss of pharma. and co. money in universities.
        9. if new ways known – then less sick – if less sick – than less to accuse of minor crimes to fill the needs of privatized penal system who now do research for pharma and co.
        10. therefore – while the patients might do well under a mental health system that actually works with newer understandings – the cost is too high – and too many lose money whom now thrive off the corrupt mental health system – so – if more sick – than all happy who thrive – accept for those of course who are sick, are made sick or sicker, or who care for the sick
        11. this is not the end ... it will get worse ... unless we the people say NO ...

        January 25, 2013 at 2:42 am |
      • thoughts

        12. since universities will not make as much money off pharma. and co. now – they want gov. to pay to find and teach newer ways that do not use meds ... or will use their meds and methods instead ...
        13. if current crop of mental patients are suddenly dumped from their current meds ... they will get sick if not done right.
        14. if many afraid of mental health system – there will always exist the sick to feed the prison system with the pharma. and co. (which encompass the universities as well) dominated systems
        15. therefore – prudent to make as many sick that can continue to feed the system – while duping we the people into insisting that gov. pay much for the development of a newer – more healthy – mental health system
        16. and ... take your time ... no rush ... now that the deed is done
        17. therefore – i say to the prez. – Nay – not this time mister.

        Do you think it is too late?

        January 25, 2013 at 4:02 am |
      • morethoughts

        Since the current administration has not laid out in any plans for how they propose to deal with mental health system right now, after just destroying it, yet are trying to take away persons rights to defend themselves – and most to access mental health freely – you can imagine that their plans for ALL are just as harmful and destructive with their long range goal to destroy more rights of all – and always keep in mind – that all have mental health – if nothing else they may have in common. They are actually using the anger toward mentally ill right now to convince the populace that this is an ok thing to do to take away the rights of the mentally ill – much like they did with the 9-11 events and the middle-east. It is the same tactic.

        January 25, 2013 at 6:31 am |
  5. Michael Ruzicho

    I believe that every school should have a positive relationship with its police departments. This teaches children that they have an open line of communication with people who are there to help them.

    January 20, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
  6. Mary Jane

    Just allow everyone to carry a weapon just like back in the old West and then you'll see a decrease in crime. Sure more people might end up getting shot on a daily basis but I can guarantee you there would be a decline in crime if every criminal knew that every victim had a means to defend themselves....We wouldn't want that though would we??

    January 20, 2013 at 12:10 pm |
  7. Can

    What we really need is less people. I don't know why people are not more interested in population control. We are just too many!

    January 20, 2013 at 10:14 am |
    • Tony

      I'd love to have an IQ test be required before breeding. And if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. But noooooo, then people complain about human rights and blah blah Eugenics blah blah. I'm not trying to be Hitler, I just don't want idiots and poor people overpopulating the planet.

      January 22, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
      • The Fourth

        Also in addition to Tony's comment – American Italians can't breed with other American Italians, a couple seasons of Jersey Shore was enough for me

        January 22, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
      • Tony

        Those people aren't even Italian, except for Vinny.

        January 28, 2013 at 10:02 am |
  8. jvance

    I think that overall, armed guards would be a deterrent but I don't know if they would be effective against a really determined offender. These recent events were planned out in detail by fairly bright persons. They would probably know if there was a guard, if the guard was armed, when the guard made his rounds, etc. If they knew they were facing an armed guard they might cover up in body armor and make him the very first target, knowing they would have a huge advantage.
    I can't see that we want a security officer suited up like a marine on patrol in Kandahar walking up and down the hallways of our elementary schools, it sends a really abberant message to the kids.

    January 19, 2013 at 10:10 pm |
  9. Mark

    Hm, another union hack exploiting the fears of housewives petrified by daytime TV sensationalism. Here comes the Police Officers Full Employment Act.

    Just like the NRA exploits the fears of the dimwitted to ensure that the lucrative US gun market stays lucrative.

    The reality is that most civilized countries have less guns, less violence and actually less police officers than the US.

    We do not need armed police in our schools, we need sensible gun regulation (and less guns).

    We can shift the money we are wasting on the "War on Drugs" to taking guns off the streets, keeping violent offenders longer in jail and spending a bit more on drug education and drug and mental health treatment for those who need it.

    Armed police officers in schools is NOT the solution!

    January 19, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
    • Theresa

      I agree. If only all the officers were like Officer Quinn. Unfortunately, the officers we have are most often found in their office eating doughnuts or putting up cones in the parking lot...that is when they're not giving kids tickets for being kids!

      January 19, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
    • Kris

      You my firend are a moron. Had there been an armed Police Officer in the building, that gunman would probably never have made it into that classroom. Other Officers would have had a faster response time as the officer in the school has direct contact with his dispatch through his portable radio. Hsving a SRO in schools is not a frightening thing to children, it gives them someone to look up to and make them feel safe. Responsible gun owners are NOT killing people! This kid STOLE his mothers gun he did NOT purchase it legally! Why cant people get that!?

      January 19, 2013 at 10:39 pm |
      • Can

        I would say his mother was NOT a responsible gun owner!

        January 20, 2013 at 10:16 am |
    • cmon man

      every country you try to use as an example has a smaller population, alot of schools alredy have officers in them already. is it my understanding you would like them removed from schools because it is bad for the kids to see them, but they can watch gun violance all night long on TV and play the part in video games? you are what is wrong with this country not guns, you would rather run from the social and mental issues and blame it on guns . typical liberal

      January 20, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
  10. Ed

    Thank you for your service, sir!

    If we had someone like you at every school there would be not only less violence but better relationships between citizens and law enforcement.

    January 18, 2013 at 6:30 pm |
    • Dave

      Guns and lawyers... If all lawyers are shysters.... you better hope you have the best one working for you...
      If all guns are bad, you better hope the guy that has the skill is on your side and shooting at the bad guys... Maybe not the best analogy, but it came to mind. In the world we live in, bad things happen. I cannot begin to understand why things like Newtown happen. Perhaps in time we will be able to stop these types of things, but in the mean time, I have to side with having guards or resource officers, however we coat it. They have a purpose. To protect our children and teachers and themselves. Think of the terrorists out there who might be looking for the same attention in an event like this. So until the world is a better place, I say cover your proverbial asses and protect them by whatever means necessary.

      January 18, 2013 at 6:59 pm |
    • H

      Bloomberg is an idiot this is his argument "less guns equals less gun death murders" if everyones guns were taken and only one person had a gun that doesnt mean there will be less muders lets say a city that sees an average of 20 murders a year this one guy with the only gun in town kills 35 there was less guns but more deaths no one is ever safe even if there is just 1 gun so the truth is to keep you dam guns and stop suggesting to ban em

      January 18, 2013 at 11:13 pm |
      • Jean Sartre


        And you think Bloomberg is an idiot?

        January 19, 2013 at 9:39 am |
  11. Tomphil56

    so... using the logic presented here- if gun laws have no impact on killings, why dont we allow bazookas, AK47's, and M126's for sale? Nothing should change, right? If cops in schools 'fixes' gun murders, there, what are we to do with malls, movie theaters, temples?? These are all places of mass murder this past year? Shall we blanket the country in cops???? Come on people–what happened to common sense?

    January 18, 2013 at 6:19 pm |
    • Patricia

      So, to those of you who think like Tomphil56, no we can't blanket the U.S. "in cops". The resource officer wasn't suggesting that. He was saying that it is our responsibility, to the best of our ability, to protect the children who are helpless in protecting themselves. In the other attacks you cited, adults were present to protect themselves, if they would have been allowed. I live near the Colorado theater shooting, if I (a 47 year old woman) or any of my three daughters and one son were in that theater and not prohibited from exercising our conceal carry permit, we would have been shooting back. I don't care what bullet proof vest your wearing, when bullets are hitting you, you don't just stand there, you fall. If only people in that theater would have been armed, trained, and allowed to defend themselves it would have been a different outcome. The gunman did not ask permission to have the guns in the theater, he did not ask permission to have more than 7 bullets, and he was willing to die. You will never stop evil completely. When evil is the offense, the only way to stop it is with defense. Waiting for the police to show up, the government to rescue you, or someone else to save you is a big mistake. Learn to save yourself and others. What if the story were different in CN. What if the breaking news report started with, "gunman shot his way into an elementary school and was met by a Janitor and a Coach who had taken a training course and were carrying semi-auto handguns, the two school employees shot and killed the gunman before he was able to reach any children......"!!!!!! What would America's response be then. We would be celebrating two heroes for saving children's lives. Just open your mind and think about it.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:36 pm |
      • Jean Sartre

        Lady, I really don't want to live in YOUR WORLD, and I'd suggest that most Americans don't either!

        Had everyone in that theater been armed, trained and oh so calm and collected, we probably would have had about double the deaths, as most of these people would have ended up shooting totally innocent people. You really do not understand what a bullet proof vest and all the other protection this guy had! Empty your little 6-shooter at him and see him still standing there and putting in another clip, just for YOU.

        You've seen way too many TV movies and have been in the wild, wild west way too long!

        January 19, 2013 at 9:49 am |
      • Tony

        *CT, but yes. Spot on agreed 100%. Until these idiot politicians get rid of "gun free zones", I'll be carrying everywhere. Criminals seek out "gun free zones" because they won't encounter resistance. F that. Officers at schools, armed and trained mall officers. There is plenty of money to pay for the security if fat is cut from the rest of the gluttonous budget

        January 19, 2013 at 9:16 pm |
      • Tony

        Oh, and Jean, I don't think YOU know how bullet proof vests work. Not likely that anyone would shoot the wrong person, when only ONE PERSON was doing the shooting.

        January 19, 2013 at 9:18 pm |
      • The Fourth

        Soccer Mom Patricia-

        How many times have you neutralized a target in a dark theatre after smoke bombs have been used? Something tells me you would've blown off Timmys ear in the row in front of you...

        January 22, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
    • H

      becuase that nation wide discussion the left keeps crying about we already had that is why fully automatic weapons like ak 47 and m16s and uzis are illegal but now theres a cry for another "national discussion" in which they move on the semi autos with the same garbage aurgument "why does anyone need a semi automatic rifle?" "why does anyone need a dam i phone ? becuase you want it right I have a rifle for my protection against whats coming say what you want but when our econmy tanks and you have a foodstamp mob raiding your house raping your wife and leaving you for dead you would wish you held on to your rights. I cant believe you stooges will believe and trust your government even with your protection the government wants nothing more then to protect you from yourself look at TSA look at NDAA look at the 30,000 predator drones were getting by 2016 look at how the police in major cities have been militarized look how the mainstream media is hyping obama and every fart he lets out. Our unemployment rate is 23.5% yea thats right not 7.8 that obama said. Look at real economist do a google search we are at the brink of collapse and you dont even see it yet.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:01 pm |
      • Jean Sartre

        GREAT POST!

        I'm always happy to read a paranoid, raciist, idiotic rant... now go take your meds...

        January 19, 2013 at 9:52 am |
    • scott

      We do allow weapons like that to be sold... you're just ignorant of the law. Those weapons aren't being used in crimes, but it is perfectly legal to own a properly regsitered machine gun or even grenade launcher. The atf calls them Class III weapons. Its not rocket science... google 'machine guns for sale'. But warning... they can cost as much as a house!

      January 19, 2013 at 7:55 am |
    • C4Him2

      but you can buy ak 47 where are not shopping

      January 19, 2013 at 8:23 am |
    • ekpurdy

      What happened to common sense? Common sense like the safest places are places with armed guards? Common sense like that fact that many schools and many passenger airplanes now have armed guards to provide security?

      January 20, 2013 at 11:52 am |
  12. Gregg

    This is a great idea. Public schools should either be located next to a police station, or have a small substation set up on school grounds. The officers who report to that office would not be merely responsible for the school, but a minimum of officers should be in that office at all times. Of course, they could also do outreach, promoting public service type careers, and safety education in the classrooms.

    January 18, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
  13. Steve

    You have to be pretty crazy if anyone thinks that taking away guns will help. Look at Chacago the law abiding people can't have guns but the criminals sure have them. How many gun related crimes are done there each day. Also someone mentioned Austrailia not having guns, research this since they have taken them away there they have more cime than before, again due to lawa abiding citizens not having any guns,

    January 18, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
    • Tony

      Chicago residents are now allowed to have handguns, and the total number of murders in 2003 (when hand guns were banned) is 100 more than in 2012, when handguns were allowed.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • Jean Sartre

      You are only about 100% wrong on gun deaths in Austrailia!

      If you can read, have computer, just Google: Gun Deaths in Austrailia...

      January 19, 2013 at 9:57 am |
  14. Tony

    LOL, tons of idiots replying here. No surprise. SROs make schools safer, fact. Legal weapons make public places safer, fact. Homeschooling? Great, let's make more anti-social clowns who breastfeed till they're 18.

    So you don't own a gun? Cool. What happens if your house gets broken into, and you are safely hidden away? You call a person with a gun. Irony...

    January 18, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
    • Nate

      Home school clowns? You surely are talking about public school degenerates! We home school we love guns, our youth can talk to any age group intelligently, not just kids their own age. Keep your antagonism for the liberals... Otherwise the liberals will divide us and win!

      January 18, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
      • Tony

        Unless both parents have PhDs, then they are doing a disservice to their children. That simple. I would think a home-schooled Einstein like yourself could come to that conclusion...

        January 18, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
      • Nate

        Wow. Tell that to my son who was showered with scholarships and went to college at 14.

        My dad still teaches math at the high school level, but my wife who taught my kids had no teaching experience. She just taught them to read when they were four.

        2-3 years ahead of their age level in grade level is the average for home schooled kids.

        Public schools slow down motivated kids...

        January 18, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
      • Tony

        College at 14? All that binge drinking will destroy his liver.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:20 pm |
      • Jean Sartre

        Dah, Dah, Dah and read your Bible are not adult or intelligent communication, by any standard...

        January 19, 2013 at 9:59 am |
    • Patricia

      There are still sane people out there, thank GOD, oops, am I not suppose to do that either. Just kidding, I will always exercise my rights.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:29 pm |
      • Jean Sartre

        It is good to exercize your rights... perhaps it might be wiser to exercize your BRAIN!

        January 19, 2013 at 10:01 am |
  15. Grateful American

    Thank you sir for caring about our kids and doing your job well.

    January 18, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
  16. Caiha

    Schools need police because children need to become accustomed the living under fascist rule which is the inevitable future. Keep up the good work.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • Way to Go Bozo

      You've got to be kidding me... what a stupid response.

      January 18, 2013 at 6:11 pm |
    • H

      tin foil hat fell off. Dude its not like every school is getting an officer its if the district wants to put up the cost so calm down

      January 18, 2013 at 11:06 pm |
  17. BrianInBeantown

    If schools want to have Resource Officers as this article describes them, then I would be all for that and I think this type of role can have a great influence on a school. That said, I think the "well then arm the schools!" argue that has come up repeatedly in the wake of Newtown is ridiculous. 1) I think simply introducing more guns into a school environment will be dramatically more harm than it ultimately helps and 2) ok, great, you've "locked down" the school according to that logic. Fantastic. What about Saturday morning soccer games? Should we arm coaches? What about churches? Arm the priests?? What about the corner restaurant? Arm teenage waitresses? By this "arm the school to protect our children!" logic, we end up arming EVERYONE since our kids aren't in school 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Ok, you've "protected them" (which I don't buy to begin with)... what about when they leave school? Do people really believe a psycho is going to throw up their hands and say, "Damn! I was going to waste a bunch of kids today with my AR-15... but there is a cop at the school!! Uggg... oh well, I guess I'll just make a sandwich instead". It's insane logic.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:15 pm |
    • cfriend

      Utah and Oregon both allow teachers carry concealed firearms, as does a rural community in Texas. While I don't agree with untrained individuals carrying in schools, I see nothing wrong than a trained individual being able to carry, especially if that training is on or above the level law enforcement agencies provide for active shooter scenarios. Yearly qualification and enhanced backgrounds checks should be required as well. Also these people shouldn't be identified, giving them the element of surprise if a rampage murderer targets their school.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • asche

      ban being alive if you want zero risk of psychopaths. what if all guns are gone and someone drives a moving van through a soccer game? people are nuts. guns, knives, cars are just things

      January 18, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
  18. Mother of 1

    Here in Michigan an armed guard (former police officer) was placed in a school. I agreed with his placement in the building since he was a former police officer and it was less likely he would do something to jeopardize the safety of the students and staff. It was reported yesterday that he left his loaded gun in the resroom at the school. His actions totally changed my mind on having armed guards in the schools.

    January 18, 2013 at 11:39 am |
    • MannyHM

      I've read a lot of discussion on how to best protect our children in school. Has there ever been a survey on how the students feel about it on how they can be best protected ? What the best way that they can feel safe ?
      If teachers were armed would the students at Sandy Hook feel safer or less safe ?
      I see pictures of teachers in Israel carrying guns slung across their shoulders while accompanying a group of children. I truly believe that a mass murderer has to be stopped (with words a knife, a gun, or whatever means necessary) or be placed in a defensive mode thereby delaying or frustrating his intent.
      In Texas, a school allow their staff who own a license to carry concealed weapon to bring their gun to school.

      January 18, 2013 at 8:03 pm |
    • Guest

      Then start fundraising & buy the officer a biometric weapon rather than whining. Biometrics will not function except in the hand of the person who is authorized to use them.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:20 pm |
    • H

      what school was that

      January 18, 2013 at 11:07 pm |
  19. shyannebrewer

    I thick that children should not be home schooled because parents might not have a teachers degree and totally mess the kid up in live.

    January 18, 2013 at 10:43 am |
    • Jeremy

      Maybe if you had been home schooled you might have better spelling and grammar.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:56 am |
    • Tom, Ton, the Other One

      If you’ve ever meet someone that was homes school, you already know exactly why it’s a bad idea.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • Nice try

      An education degree does not make you a good teacher. Neither does bad grammar make you seem intelligent when attempting to argue against home schooling. My kids are home schooled, and all have gone to college for free on academic scholarships. I am also an instructor at a private college and do not have an eductation degree.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:48 am |
      • Jean Sartre

        Yes, and Jesus is rising from the dead on, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday – taking Friday off – Saturday and Sunday...

        January 19, 2013 at 10:08 am |
    • ralf

      You're correct,stupid teaching stupid like you,If you want cops in schools make the parents pay for that,might as well make the parents pay tuition for their brats too.taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for other peoples trash.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:55 am |
  20. walkingfan

    Yeah, lets put armed guards everywhere. We're already a police state, at least make it obvious to everyone. What a sad, sad state of affairs this country has become.

    January 18, 2013 at 10:41 am |
  21. peggy

    If the school need security, tell me what next....mall, market, church, workplace. WHY DON'T WE STOP SELL GUN! SIMPLE SOLUTION

    January 18, 2013 at 10:30 am |
    • Tom, Ton, the Other One

      Yea… because there was no violence before we invited guns right? Moron.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:41 am |
      • Nice try

        Check your grammar, moron. Yea? Really?

        January 18, 2013 at 11:51 am |
      • atteckus

        No one said ending gun sales would prevent all violence. But it would GREATLY REDUCE the total amount of violence in this country. You try to make the imperfect the enemy of the good. That makes you the moron.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
      • atteckus

        No one suggested that ending all gun sales would stop all violence. But it would GREATLY REDUCE the total amount of violence in this nation, just as it has in Britain and Australia. We are 2200% more likely to die of a gun shot in America than in our next nearest comparison industrialized country. We are 600% more likely to die of a gun murder than them. You try to make the imperfect the enemy of the good. That makes you the moron.

        Less guns = less deaths.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
    • Nate

      Obviously not a native English-speaking person. It is our right to bear arms. If you do not understand that please do not comment. If you have a valid recommendation to make that will be legal AND help stop murders.... Everyone would love to hear it.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
  22. saganhill

    I don't agree. We don't need more cops. And its really interesting that you suggest this for the "safety of the kids". We currently demonize our teachers for not teaching our kids, their unions, and their integrity. The only thing that I see in putting cops in schools is making a job for someone that really is not needed.

    January 18, 2013 at 10:28 am |
  23. DWFields

    I only have one question: If these people who so much want to reduce government spending now want to put armed guards into every school in the nation, where is the money to pay them going to come from?

    Please. Don't try to say volunteers. Volunteers aren't trained for the emergencies they may end up having to face and quite honestly can make a situation worse rather than better.

    January 18, 2013 at 10:27 am |
    • Guest

      This money would reduce the town's costs later. When an elementary school student gets to know an officer on a daily basis it creates a social bond. Outreach has been proven to reduce juvenile crime & that benefits the entire community.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:27 pm |
  24. Peter

    There were armed guards at Columbine when that massacre happened. Just saying.

    January 18, 2013 at 9:44 am |
    • Guest

      It would be helpful if you checked your facts first before commenting, Peter. The officers were not even in the building at the time of the shooting. The criminals had checked the guard's schedule to avoid them. Lunch time for safety officers should not be at an easily determined time. Random patterns are standard for bodyguards, & Columbine taught us the value of that training.
      The lesson we are learning from Newtown is a criminal will bypass a more difficult target. Both the High School & Intermediate School DO have guards, the Elementary School did not. The last school the shooter attended was the High School, that school would have been fresher in his memory, yet he did not attack there......I wonder why???????

      January 18, 2013 at 9:17 pm |
  25. TSB8C

    Israel used to have a school shooting problem as well, back in the 1970's. They started a program where parents of the students volunteered to be trained and then serve as security at the schools their own children attended. They carry American made M16 rifles and there hasn't been a school shooting there in over 30 years. The program is also cheap because the parents volunteer to protect their own child's school.

    January 18, 2013 at 9:36 am |
    • DWFields

      American parents are too "busy" to be a reliable source of manpower.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:28 am |
      • Tom, Ton, the Other One

        But not too busy to blame everyone else for their problems.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:44 am |
    • Stevelb1

      All those parents were trained in the military and are all in the reserves. They're not your typical soccer moms/dads.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
    • Guest

      There would be more parents available than you think. For instance; I volunteer already, & I would literally die to protect any child. I am more accustomed to applying first aid, but I would do anything for our schools' kids.

      January 18, 2013 at 9:27 pm |
  26. Richard

    Apparently Columbine High School had a sheriff’s deputy on scene when the shooting broke out. Did that prevent it?

    January 18, 2013 at 9:11 am |
    • Bob

      He forgot his glasses, but did shoot back.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:10 am |
  27. Splinter48708

    As long as these SROs are combating the bullying problem that pervades every school district in a logical and sane manner (as well as their other benefits), that's cool.

    But, I've seen way to many stories of bullied kids hitting their breaking point and they either do what a kid in California tried recently (kill his tormentors) or something equally tragic and that's kill themselves to escape that hell. Both options shouldn't have to be considered if the SRO makes the time to engage the bully and take proactive and proper steps to remind the bully that their actions are not just uncool, but, can land them in a club that they would rather not be part of: Either shot at by the person they bully or, something far worse when the person bullied commits suicide leaving the bully having to face the punishment of their conscience and the fact that they might as well had pulled the trigger or made the noose or however the bullied kid chose to die. Then, the SRO needs to do a different duty and arrest the bully for involuntary manslaughter (Personally, I'd want to see the bully charged with murder 2 or 3...but, that wouldn't stick in court) or, if the bully survives being shot at, the bully is arrested for felony harassment/stalking.

    I know that SROs cannot be everywhere at once, though...But, if the students know that they can talk to the SRO about a simple prank at the end of the year, then, students should be able to talk to the SRO about the "Nelson Muntz" in their lives as well.

    January 18, 2013 at 8:50 am |
  28. LeeCMH

    A cop looking for job security for his comrades. Just pose a question any question. Answer: more cops.

    Get a bunch of cops together and they can have fun kill a homeless person.

    January 18, 2013 at 8:22 am |
  29. Antiquity

    Schools need more police so the kids don't grow up hating the police

    January 18, 2013 at 8:18 am |
    • Red

      Hey Moderator! Censor This. More Cops = More hatred toward them. Police are the bullies and that is just plain fact.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:05 am |
      • Ann

        Go see your parole officer.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
  30. Neil

    "I currently practice in. At the Royal London Hospital, it still dumbfounded people as guns are totally banned, yet people still get shot"

    Yes people still get shot at a rate of 35 a year compared to almost 11,000 for America.

    You all talk about guards with guns in schools to defend against those with guns yet you all fail to put 2 + 2 together and realise that it's the abundance of guns which is the problem. It's just too damn easy for someone to get hold of a gun, illegal or legal. It doesn't matter if the gun is legal or illegal it is still out there and can be picked up and used at any time for whatever reason.

    You won't listen, you won't learn and you will continue to die in your droves.

    Lose your gun culture.
    Lose the guns.

    I know I'm wasting my breath, you Americans will keep making the same mistakes and another 10+ thousand will continue to die each year.

    January 18, 2013 at 8:18 am |
    • Jaime

      Or maybe it is the hate that so easily spills out of one's mouth that incites the violence?

      January 18, 2013 at 10:26 am |
    • Tennvol1

      I keep hearing this "35 gun deaths" touted like it's a glorious achievement, however, nowhere in this arguement does anyone point out the overall homicide rates in the UK. In 1990 the rate in the UK was 1.2 incidences per 100K. In 1997 the UK established it's handgun ban and the rate began to steadily rise until 2002 where it topped out at 2.1. The rate has eventually returned to normal (1.23 in 2011), but it took a decade to get there. Also not mentioned is the fact the Britain has the highest violent crime rate in the EU for 2011. So you have the exact same murder rate as 22 years ago and a higher violent crime rate (ex. burglaries, theft, assault) and this is the example we're supposed to follow? Apparently people are still committing murder, just not with guns. I'm sure the folks that were killed are jumping for joy that at least they weren't shot. Lastly, the US homicide rate in 1990 was 9.0 per 100K and it has steadily droppped to 4.8 in 2011 despite the assault weapons ban expiring in 2004 (with DC having the highest rate at 24.0, and until recently, a complete handgun ban). So cherry picking out one statistic and throwing it around like banning guns made a difference in overall murder is very disingenuous. (All of these numbers are from the UNDOC) Do we have more murders than the UK? Yes. Do we have more gun deaths? Yes, we have more guns than you do. Has our murder rate decrease over the last two decades and yours stayed the same (with a big jump in the middle)?......Yes Of course I'm sure all these facts are me just wasting my breath.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:43 am |
    • Red

      Well then Neil, why don't you and Piers Morgan go make a few felch babies and pick up a history book. If it were not for our guns here in America we would all have annoying British accents and no spines. We do not tell you when to have your tea so stay out of my gun safe.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:51 am |
      • Stevelb1

        Settle down Bevis, he's saying the elimination of Guns in the UK didn't have a positive effect on homicide. They just killed each other in other ways.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
  31. JustTheFax

    Until you tackle the root cause of the problem, you're still going to have a problem.

    January 18, 2013 at 8:16 am |
  32. Keel Hauler

    In South Florida, we've had SRO's for many years, and we don't have mass school shootings. The rest of the USA needs to get with the program.

    January 18, 2013 at 7:58 am |
    • JustTheFax

      We don't have SRO's and we don't have school shootings. Just sayin'.

      January 18, 2013 at 8:17 am |
    • Steve

      I have a bear patrol in my apartment, and I havent seen any bears so it must be working.

      Specious logic at best, self-serving tripe at worst.

      January 18, 2013 at 9:37 am |
      • Ann

        When I was a kid, we had a dog that barked like crazy any time an airplane flew overhead. She was great. We never had an airplane land in the yard as long as we had her.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
    • Reality

      Tell that to the 15 year old girl that was shot and killed in school in Ft. Lauderdale

      January 18, 2013 at 9:38 am |
  33. Jesse

    Finally we here from an expert instead of someone who thinks they know what they are talking about. Very refreshing article and very simply put you can take a cop off of traffic detail and put them in the schools.

    January 18, 2013 at 7:03 am |
    • GrammarPolice

      Here, here! Very simply indeed.

      January 18, 2013 at 7:43 am |
  34. Deceit4200

    Brilliant plan but whose going to come up with the extra 100 billion dollars to pay the saleries of all these SRO's? Besides accidental gun shootings are responcible for a lot more child deaths than deliberate killings. Its sad but the few lives that may or not be saved from gun ownership are out weighed by the staggering abouts of accidental deaths. So many children getting a hold of their idiot parents gun.

    January 18, 2013 at 5:44 am |
    • Patricia

      How many children drown each year??? Look it up. Oh no, we should start a ban on swimming pools, or maybe, just maybe, we should raise our children to understand and respect the water, follow rules of safety, and learn to swim.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:54 pm |
  35. possum

    I concur. Add to that metal detectors.

    January 18, 2013 at 4:11 am |
    • SkepticalOne

      And make possum pay for it all...

      January 18, 2013 at 9:24 am |
  36. Jim

    I applaud the police officers who do a good job. Unfortunately, the youth officer in my hometown was a pedophile. Putting the police in schools has tradeoffs when it comes to student safety (just think about the incident this week in Lapeer, Michigan, where an officer left a gun in a school rest room).

    January 17, 2013 at 10:31 pm |
    • Marielle

      I'm so sorry your school security guard turned out to be a horrible person. I think most aren't though. I would like to say I like the idea of more security, but they need to either be stationed near the entrances or outside. We had armed security guards here in CO at Columbine High School. One of them even engaged in a brief gun battle with one of the teenagers who caused the massacre. I think it's more important to retrofit our schools to make them safer and keep the predators out in the first place. At Sandy Hook a reinforced entrance door of some kind rather than just solid glass that the shooter was able to blast away would have prevented him from entering at all. I would like to see security guards patrolling the perimeters, though, or in a guard station by the entrances. It's a shame our country has come to need these extra security measures, but it is what it is now.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:13 am |
      • NoTags

        Had the SRO at Columbine had a rifle, he MAY have been able to stop Harris or Klebold. Apparently he could see either Harris or Klebold (I don't know which one) well enough to exchange shots with one of them. Since he was only armed with a handgun, he needed a weapon with more accuracy.

        January 18, 2013 at 6:36 am |
      • Steve

        Yep and if he had an RPG he couldve blown them up...grenades... the same. Maybe we should have fully armed soldiers as they have more weapons, bigger weapons, more dangerous weapons. That would make our kids even safer...that or inspire the crazy bad guys to come with larger weapons next time.

        More will die and then you will want a whole squad in the schools. Maybe we can repurpose some of the old prisons. That would keep the kids safe. Lock them in and close the cells. That way our kids can be in prison and the criminals can run free.

        January 18, 2013 at 9:41 am |
      • DWFields

        You just tagged the problem though; It Just Takes One.

        Most kids are nice, normal, fun-loving and social; in every group there's at least ONE bully.
        Most teenagers are nice, normal, fun-loving and social; in every group there's at least ONE troublemaker.
        Most cops are thoughtful, helpful, serious and attentive; but we already know that in almost every group, there's ONE who shouldn't be there.

        Who watches the watchers?

        January 18, 2013 at 10:37 am |
      • Red

        The SRO at columbine is was and will always be a coward. He did exchange fire with someone but he ran the other direction as an active shooter went into the school filled with innocent unarmed babies. That incident is a prime example of what we can expect form the sort of cops that get stuck with the task of babysitting. The vast majority of SRO's are placed there following disciplinary action so that they can ride out the rest of their carers and collect their pension from you and I.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:11 am |
  37. Bman

    This is ridiculous. In my opinion police officers are dredged from the dull and the dullest, the would be crooks with power fetishes who were just lucky they didn't get involved with a life of crime, are by no means the type of mentors and/or examples needed in our schools. Sad fact we have lost the edge. Now we have to greet the crows coming home to roost.

    January 17, 2013 at 9:40 pm |
    • Khym

      My opinion is that your opinion is silly in so many ways that I'd have to spend a week tearing it apart. Sadly the end result is that I'd have a created a wonderful piece of writing and you'd still be ignorant.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:16 pm |
      • Marielle

        Well said Khym. For some reason it is impossible to have a real and constructive conversation on these comment pages without the trolls always showing up and showing us their "superior" intelligence. UGH.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:16 am |
    • advocatusdiaboli

      So, you allow them to protect the airports, our courts, our money, but disrespect them in the end. What a nice fellow you are. And a hypocrite: you put air travel and money before your children.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:18 pm |
      • Steve

        Actually...air travel is handled by the TSA...a group of the lowest IQ, most spiteful individuals one can hire.

        ...and I dont know about cops in your state but here in Colorado they are known not as law-enforcement, but revenue-enforcement. All they do is give out tickets en mass, but listen to the news and its like they are never present anywhere else.

        January 18, 2013 at 9:43 am |
    • BK

      So I guess you'd be okay with living in a city with no police? Good luck with that.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:34 pm |
    • Mike

      And who will you call when you are in trouble, Batman?

      January 17, 2013 at 11:28 pm |
      • Steve

        I'm 45 and have NEVER once needed a cop, not once. Not that I never will, just that most people believe a cop will save them when he will more than likely be writing the crime report on you and thats it. Cops dont magically appear and 90% of the time show up after the fact.

        The question to you is...When have you needed a cop?

        January 18, 2013 at 9:47 am |
  38. Dr. A

    Officer Quinn, thank you for your service. You are an invaluable part of your community. As a trauma surgeon who does operate on teenage patients who've sustained gunshot wound injuries, I have seen the difference SRO's make in the lives of developing young people. They play the most important role (in my humble opinion) in the reduction of teenage crime and reduction of gangs. Some of my patients would still be in gangs or worse, in prison or dead if it hadn't been for their school resource/liason officer.

    My second though is gun control is not going to work. Gangs will find ways around the current laws and smuggle guns into our country from wherever they can. Taking the rights away from law abiding citizens will do nothing. I've had several patients, shot by their victim who've stated something along the lines "If I knew he had a gun, I wouldn't have tried to mug them/kick his a**/jack their car." I also did a surgical elective at the Royal London Hospital, London's foremost trauma center, and I still saw gsw patients there, although fewer than the safety-net healthcare facility I currently practice in. At the Royal London Hospital, it still dumbfounded people as guns are totally banned, yet people still get shot, thanks to gun smugglers; however, much like inner city public hospitals in the US, the staff are not shocked by this.

    January 17, 2013 at 8:28 pm |
    • Steve

      Comparing UK gunshot ranks with America, without disclosing the fact that they have 1/10th the shootings we have and 1/4 the violent crime rate is dishonest and self-serving.

      Try to be honest with your facts, it wont make you look like a boob.

      January 18, 2013 at 9:49 am |
  39. Eric

    A good SRO is community policing at its finest, and community policing is the only kind to PREVENT crime, rather than simply INVESTIGATE after the fact.

    January 17, 2013 at 8:20 pm |
    • Guest

      Finally; someone who gets it! These officers help kids & the entire community benefits by having a lower juvenile crime rate. Very cost effective & sustainable.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:36 pm |
  40. Batman

    Take the machine guns away from the general population. Those guns we're meant to raze down a whole bunch of people, not for self defense. Ban bazookas while you are at it !!?? Take away weapons used to kill a whole bunch of people. Do it do it, do it USA! Follow my lead, The Batman! 🙂

    January 17, 2013 at 7:49 pm |
    • Eric

      Before you spew nonsense, do some research. Idiots like you are both why the gun control movement is so large and also why it makes so little headway.

      January 17, 2013 at 8:17 pm |
    • Khym

      The general populace doesn't own machine guns. These firearms are tightly regulated. And as for bazooka's they are simply not allowed for civilian ownership. You're either incredibly ignorant or indulging in silliness.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:46 pm |
      • Mike

        I vote it's silliness.

        January 17, 2013 at 11:29 pm |
      • DWFields

        It was silliness, but he has a point.
        In nearly every mass shooting we've seen in the last 10 years or so, it has been a civilian version of a military "machine gun" used in the crime. It hasn't been single-shot, bolt-action or lever-action rifles, it's been an auto-reloading military-style combat rifle designed for the specific purpose of killing people. Yes, there have been exceptions and it will be impossible to prevent every instance, but it has been our society that has been the biggest cause.

        No, I don't mean the guns, I mean the divisions that have grown within our country, our cities and even our schools. I mean the rhetoric we hear and read every day from people who try to claim, "My Way is the only Way." Parents are afraid to discipline their children because those children will claim 'child abuse' when they are punished. Our children no longer learn right from wrong and as such we see an increase in the kind of lifestyle we once knew as 'the old west'. Our society is becoming one of Kill Or Be Killed and it's turning us into a country little better than the extremist societies we've now spent over a decade fighting.

        January 18, 2013 at 10:52 am |
    • Wink Martindale IV

      Won't work. They are easy to manufacture with common parts from Home Depot. What, are you so shielded you don't know how to make homemade weapons? Heck, most 7th graders can do it. Are you going to ban paintball rifles? I can simply put lead balls instead of paint balls and I have a 500 round assault rifle. Don't believe it can be done, you don't get out very much. So lets say you ban paint ball rifles. No problem. I go to Home Depot and buy some lead pipe. I could do it with plastic pipe but lead pipe lasts a lot longer. Then all I need is a freon, Co2, or Puron tank. I can plumb that tank to the pipe and make a simple trigger mechanism. I can feed 1000 lead balls into a canister and it will fire the 1000 lead balls at 600 mph. Imagine going into a high school gym during an activity. So what do you say about that since I did not use a single firearm????????????? waiting for the answer.....

      January 18, 2013 at 12:32 am |
      • DWFields

        It's obvious YOU don't know the least thing about paintball; your argument is illogical at best. NO, you cannot replace those paintballs with lead balls, or any other kind of lethal object; they are powered by a CO2 cartridge that uses simple air pressure to pop out a 1" plastic ball filled with paint. Any metal object of the same size would be too heavy to even make it out the barrel and if it did, would travel no more than 10 feet before it hit the ground.

        January 18, 2013 at 10:59 am |
      • Guest

        Criminals have made homemade weapons for decades. It's not rocket science. Never heard of a zip gun before? Really? Also we know just how easy it is to make IED's.
        What about the gasoline incendiary death trap that Holmes created to destroy his apartment building. It was rigged to blow when a neighbor opened the door to complain about the loud music he had set as a lure. The neighbor luckily just yelled through the door that she was calling the police. Might have blown up the whole block.

        January 18, 2013 at 10:46 pm |
  41. Essayons


    January 17, 2013 at 7:26 pm |
    • BK

      I don't think that's feasible. Ninjas cost a lot more than normal police officers; we'd have to raise taxes.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:37 pm |
      • DWFields

        You mean we wouldn't have to raise taxes for the police? How will they be paid?

        January 18, 2013 at 11:01 am |
  42. drinker75

    When I was in Jr High 25 years ago we had a police officer in our school in CANADA, yep, Canada! We also had one in our high school. Here in Kansas they have them in Middle and High schools. Pretty safe area as well. I don't see a problem with it.

    I think we also need some stricter gun control. Guns aren't going anywhere but there needs to be more training involved in owning them and limited access to some types of ammo.

    January 17, 2013 at 7:17 pm |
  43. Liz

    SRO's were used as a Nazis in my hometowns high schools after I Columbine hit. I thought things were rough when I was there but then it turns out (dont know if they still do it) but you can't even walk down the hall freely at the age of 17 you have to march ina particular pattern down the hall sometimes past your locker or even your class room until the pattern gets you to where your going. Step out of line to cross the hall to go into class and you might find yourself face planted into a locker like some sort of prisoner. It was utterly ridiculous when I Heard those stories from underclassmen after I left. Our school had the occasional fight, it had some bad people, but it didnt' have issues where teenagers getting ready to go into the real world needed to be marched like criminals.

    This is why I think MORE security and ridiculous procedures treating kids who are supposed to be getting prepared to walk out into the world for college and jobs like criminals in the place they're supposed to be learning in ..is ...well just frankly NOT needed. Be sensible add more security if you need to but atleast make procdures changes to be more about changing to community of students not treating them like they already did something wrong.

    January 17, 2013 at 6:34 pm |
    • Leo

      Well said Liz. Thanks

      January 17, 2013 at 6:36 pm |
    • Guest

      Most of the schools that are being proposed for guards are the elementary schools. Your "I had a friend tales" are not particularly credible, Liz. Maybe your "underclass friends" were among the hoodrats these officers had to protect other students from.
      After another student pursued mine through the building threatening to "stomp her til she broke" the safety officer stopped the "thugette" from doing it again. That is what they are there for. We placed an officer in the school because some students slammed a kid into his gym locker repeatedly despite the teacher's attempts to intervene. The student was injured so badly he would up on life support.
      Please grow up emotionally, Liz. It's been over a decade & you still communicate hatred against safety officers? Wow, makes me pity the officer who was stationed in your school. Honestly, some people(rolls eyes)!

      January 19, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
  44. gabzgrl

    So, not to burst the bubble, police officers are people too. How come this is any better....how can having more guns inside schools solve the issue of gun violence? There have been cases of vets and officers going off, or racially motivated shootings so I'm not sure I trust the whole idea. Not saying I don't respect our police officers, I'm just saying they are human too. You can't really avoid more human error by subjecting school children to being surrounded by these men and women officers with weapons/guns. That's my opinion. I'm not really into guns, but maybe in communities with more violence like inner cities or LA that would make sense, but do we need them in schools out in middle of nowhere....

    If it works and does prevent more episodes of gun violence I'm all for it. I don't really disagree, we have a right to own guns, on the other hand we have to ensure that we CAN trust each other. The level of trust is BREACHED when you hand officers the ultimate power in policing the states...right? I think that makes sense...

    January 17, 2013 at 5:57 pm |
    • Leo

      While we're at it let's disarm our law enforcement agencies and the military. What a glib argument lady.

      January 17, 2013 at 6:30 pm |
    • raul isodo

      Hey, I'd rather have a trained police officer in a school any day rather than a gung-ho NRA VOLUNTEER. Can you imagine the negative impact on young people if Ted Nugent were there giving them live advice? They'd all be rude, self-centered, condescending, and always telling people to suck thier machine guns. Nice.

      January 17, 2013 at 8:40 pm |
  45. Fleur

    I am a teacher. I want children to be safe when they go to school. What message are we, as adults, giving our children? That the society that they are growing up in and are a part of is frightening and dangerous and sick. Schools will feel more like prisons. Is this what we want for our children? Don't treat the symptoms, strike at the cause. Remove the guns.

    January 17, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
    • Leo

      We've spent 236 1/2 years arming ourselves. Guns aren't going anywhere. It is sad that there are mentally ill people that commit these atrocities, but true that – given the FACT that guns aren't going anywhere – we need to DEFEND our children.

      This is the quickest, most practical, and common sense approach to this issue. In the absence of school security, these kinds of things will continue to happen.

      We cannot afford to waste time debating guns. Again, they aren't going anywhere. Deal with it.

      But no more children deserve to die. Ever.

      January 17, 2013 at 6:35 pm |
      • out

        Just like an American to say; Lets not do it the correct way, lets just do it the quickest way, easiest way. Which, of course, never solves the problem, only hides it under a blanket for a while.

        January 17, 2013 at 7:44 pm |
      • raul isodo

        I see you've taken to parroting the NRA's stance that all gun crimes are committed by mentally ill people. Is this a new trend, or have we been blind to it all this time?

        January 17, 2013 at 8:42 pm |
      • Bman

        Wrong o! 236 years is nothing. Today is the first day of the rest of our nations history. If we can reverse 236 years of paranoid gun fetishes in a couple decades, I'm all for it.

        January 17, 2013 at 9:45 pm |
    • chris c

      remove the gunsfrom whom? the good peolple and then your kids and entire family are at risk,to high crime,rape burgulary,and so on.wake up teach there have been,always will be bad people in this world that we will never be rid of.but they can,t be banned cuase really who are they until they commit an offense? think about it then make a decent remark in favor of life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:09 pm |
      • Steve

        The fact that you can't spell, can't format, and lack even the most rudimentary of english skills tells me that I shouldn't, or can't, take you seriously at all as your opinion cannot possibly be that educated considering your post.

        If this is the level of intelligence that seems to be widespread among gun owners, then I have to side with those that would limit guns as I just don't think the majority of Americans are actually smart enough to handle them well.

        January 18, 2013 at 9:57 am |
    • Khym

      Officers or armed teachers in our schools would tell our kids that we love them so much that we will do anything to protect them from those who wish them harm. Armed school security exists in some other countries, Israel for example. The world is a cruel, dangerous place. Our kids know that.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:55 pm |
      • Steve

        Gee, now if only PARENTS would take some responsibility for their spawn. But they are too busy to teach them anything. The teacher is expected to care for them and educate them in life, its not enough they teach them everything else. Hell, some cant even be bothered to make sure their kid has foods.

        I have worked in schools and let me tell you, if any of you were half as worried about your childs education as you were about your guns, maybe we wouldnt have a whole generation of ill-educated, apathetic, ignorant children wandering around (even during school hours, which I dont understand).

        January 18, 2013 at 10:00 am |
      • DWFields

        No, Steve. Today's parents are too scared to properly discipline their children. While I am fully aware of the good that Child Abuse services do, kids have learned that they can get away with almost anything by running to their school counselor and claim Child Abuse even if they are legitimately punished by their parents.

        Corporal punishment needs to be permitted. Parents need to be able to rein in their children. Like anybody else, kids will keep pushing their limits to see just how far they can go and now it's to the point that they effectively have no limits–until they go to jail.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:51 am |
    • DWFields

      Guns aren't the cause, they're just another symptom. Try again.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:47 am |
  46. Freedom Fascist

    Police Officers patrolling our schools? Are they going to have dogs too, will the principal have a loud-mouthed 13 yr old hauled off to jail too? Oh my God Amerika...wake up!!!! You want to send your kids to a prison at 5 years old. Obama is a two-faced idiot who is slowly guaranteeing the collapse of our civil freedoms. Better keep your guns, how else are you going to fight back when the authorities decide its your turn to be hauled off to a camp. Coming to a broke, heavy militarized Amerika near you.

    January 17, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
    • empresstrudy

      Yes in fact our high schools do have that. cops and dogs. no people have been shot or stabbed or run down or thrown off the roof or set on fire, ever. And because of the dogs, few people are stupid enough to carry drugs either. I know, it's awful, awful.

      January 17, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
    • sc


      thank you, NEXT!!!

      January 17, 2013 at 5:33 pm |
    • Leo

      I don't want to send my child to a "prison" but neither do I want to send him her to a death trap. Calm down 'fascist"

      January 17, 2013 at 6:38 pm |
      • Bman

        Teach your child not to be a coward and set an example by saying No to police thugs in schools.

        January 17, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
    • Blah

      Learn to spell America! Maybe you need to wake up!

      January 17, 2013 at 9:03 pm |
    • DWFields

      Obama is opposed to armed guards in schools for exactly that reason. It's not Obama that's turning us into a Fascist nation, it's those who oppose simple, common, sense.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:54 am |
  47. Melva

    I'd like to have Officer Quinn's opinion on having teachers with concealed carry permits bringing their guns to his school, assuming that the school board would make an exception for them with respect to the school's Gun Free Zone status. If the teachers passed additional background checks and had additional training, it might be more cost effective than having more police officers assigned to schools in the district.

    January 17, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Leo

      This is a good argument. But I happen to know of a teacher that went berserk at our local school. Let's let teachers focus on "teaching" and security focus on "securing".

      January 17, 2013 at 6:39 pm |
      • sall

        I agree

        January 17, 2013 at 10:11 pm |
      • DWFields

        Add to that the average teacher neither needs, nor wants, that added responsibility. Their work is already difficult enough considering how undisciplined some of their students already are.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • Bman

      Any civilian who has a gun in a single person shooter incident, could be and should expect to be gunned down, unless he's really lucky and the cops see him shoot a known assailant. If you're responding to that type of situation anyone not in uniform who pulls out a gun is a target. As they should be.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:52 pm |
    • jgumbrechtcnnCNN

      HI Melva, this is Jamie with the Schools of Thought blog. I can't speak for Officer Quinn, but you might be interested in this opinion piece we ran earlier in the week from the superintendent of a rural school district where some staff members carry guns: http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/14/my-view-if-we-love-our-children-we-need-to-protect-them/

      January 17, 2013 at 9:55 pm |
  48. scott bleyle

    my Mom taught three kids to shoot when we turned eight years old.She learned target sports in High School P.E. back when target sports were more popular than Baseball is today.My sister and I hunted and reloaded together for many years and shared this with extended family.Every one is gone now and I will cherish memories until we meet again.Mom was a Special Ed. teacher R.N. and Occupational Therapist I am an R.N. my sweety is a Nurse.School was still safe then.

    January 17, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
  49. jj

    Remove guns from everywhere in this violent society. Violence begets violence.

    January 17, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
    • Kim

      Yeah, I like it. A 'war on guns'. We can run it just like the 'War on Drugs'. The problem with societies is they are full of people with different ideas and behaviors and opinions as to who is right, who is wrong, which laws are good and which laws are bad and which to follow and which to ignore. But, we could go back to a time without guns- wasn't really so very long ago. Just know, these were not times without weapons and killing.

      January 17, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
      • John

        Go back to a time without guns? You would have to go back to at least the 1600s.


        January 17, 2013 at 5:54 pm |
      • Leo

        What "time" are you talking about? Read a book

        January 17, 2013 at 7:06 pm |
      • DWFields

        The 'time without guns' was more than 600 years ago when people used knives, swords, axes and yes, bows, to kill other people. In fact, you will not find a time in history when people weren't killing people with whatever came to hand.

        It's not the weapons causing death, it's the people wielding those weapons.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
    • scott bleyle

      I believe stupidity shouldn't procreate.

      January 17, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • Leo

      Pull your head out of the sand. Guns are here to stay.

      Let's secure our schools.

      January 17, 2013 at 6:40 pm |
      • Batman

        Not machine guns... Bye bye machine guns! 🙂

        January 17, 2013 at 7:51 pm |
      • Bman

        Listen Eor, if I need wisdom from a JackAs% I'll say eahowH!

        January 17, 2013 at 9:54 pm |
    • Leo

      Pull your head out of the sand, too. Guns are here to stay.

      Let's secure our schools.

      January 17, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
  50. Jim

    Worked 33 years in a high school of 3000 kids. 23 were as an administrator. I can tell you that our school resource officers were tremendous assets. They operated exactly as Mr. Quinn described. We considered them one of our own as they were integral to our efforts to educate kids. I am still friends with several of them. They say those years were the best of their careers. Thanks to all of them.

    January 17, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
    • Leo

      Thank you Jim for the non-rambling post. I agree with where you're going with this.

      January 17, 2013 at 6:43 pm |
    • Bman

      Jim, you are a fool. Did any of your students ever make it to college? Are they working now or unemployed? Did they ever gain any skills later in life?

      January 17, 2013 at 9:57 pm |
      • Keel Hauler

        Why is he a fool? You are the one who is ranting with nonsense. Go away!

        January 18, 2013 at 7:50 am |
  51. mory

    Very interesting. Many people we paint in the conservative corner can accept a larger government caused by placing a policeman, or some sort of human resource, in schools that would help keep our children safer (not safe- but I would expect safer) while allowing 2nd amendment rights to remain. Many people some place in the liberal corner believe schools should remain santuaries of peace for children free of such government intrusion(?). Often these people respond with 'society must change', nit our schools. Problem is, schools remain at risk while society takes the generations long task of 'changing'. This is the "I want to change the mindset of a nation rather than make the immediate increase in our childrens safety" crowd. Now here is the laughable part, in my opinion. I will use my school as an example. Our educational board allows, and has conducted, police and dog sweeps during the day checking lockers and parking lots for drugs. Armed police enter unannounced and kids are locked down in the classroom while this takes place. This is a quiet Connecticut suburb in a rather well off area. Now, when this became national news, many in the nation (liberals many call them as a group) applauded. Hmmm...so why is it that dogs and weapons entering a school unannounced to investigate children is cool and not emotionally rattling but a person placed in a school daily to watch over their safety is somehow a bad reflection of ...what....society? Change society. That's what we do but while that takes hold over my childrens lives and theirs, how about we make them safer (not safe) NOW? I do not understand the arguing over that at all.

    January 17, 2013 at 3:51 pm |
    • Leo

      Thank you mory.

      January 17, 2013 at 6:44 pm |
    • Bman

      Mory, If Obama doesn't want cops in schools all's he has to say is he wants cops in schools, then all the red necked hicks with guns will be against cops in schools. Problem solved. What exactly is your point? You don't like Obama?

      January 17, 2013 at 10:01 pm |
    • Steve

      The right wing hates the govt...unless they are carrying a gun, then they are cool.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:04 am |
    • Steve

      ...oh, and teachers...the Rught HATES teachers...feels they are overpaid, do-nothing morons. Seen it said time and again...they dont really do anything, they get paid way too much for what they do, they arent that imporatant as I can teach my kid at home...

      All a bunch of tripe, yet you bow down and worship the guy with the gun.

      Sad that our education has become irrelevant but safety, something that is an illusion really, means everything. I mean, really, when are you truly safe?

      January 18, 2013 at 10:07 am |
  52. jdalco

    I like the idea of cops in school if you won't arm the teachers but I have to ask. . why was this a good idea when Obama said it but a bad idea when the NRA said the same thing???? we are being played folks. . . .

    January 17, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
    • mory

      Now you're being silly. The importantance is not the idea. The importance is the hole in the face from which the words of the idea pass.

      January 17, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
    • DWFields

      When did Obama say it?

      January 18, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
  53. Mnela

    $ 3,000 dls year tax for the posetion of assault weapons and all automatic arms??? (fund security gards wages) National Arms Insurance covering deaths cause by this arms base line $75,000 per death?? A must! Yep, that might help, a well sound logical and rational Democrat-Republican aproach. Sure it doesnt go against 2nd admentment. And everybody makes money. Guns manufacturers, insurance companies veterans, hospitals. Puts responsability on gun ownership.

    January 17, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
    • ghetto mafia

      Go back to school and learn how to spell in English Class...

      Tell the truth too, you really want the $3000 tax per gun to make sure your lazy butt can stay home on welfare and keep collecting a free check from the responsible tax paying gun owners.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:55 pm |
  54. chelle

    I think what people are missing here is that an SRO is not there as a body guard for the student population. They are there to be the school's "beat cop". The guy everyone gets to know, trust, and go to if there is a problem. We have them in Canada – there is nothing radical about it. The difference is that the NRA wants security guards in place to protect against armed attackers, and an SRO can do that but so much more.

    January 17, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
    • clifford gaskill

      You are so mistaken. A Police Officer is sworn to Protect and Serve. A SRO is a Sworn Police Officer. That Officer will risk his or her life to protect the life of everyone at the school.

      January 17, 2013 at 3:53 pm |
  55. clifford gaskill

    Another police hero, Thanks for risking your life to save ours.
    I guess Obama gives Egypt 2 billion dollars of foreign aid instead of paying for Police Officers in EVERY school. Too bad our kids don't rate as high as the people of Egypt.

    January 17, 2013 at 3:19 pm |
    • Bman

      Police are pigs, they've been racketeering since Adam met Eve. There is nothing good they can do unless you think spying on and coercing or even threatening teenagers is good.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:04 pm |
      • Khym

        Goodness, you're such a ill-formed, simple little tool. But please continue posting. You give many of us a wonderful opportunity for fancy verbal abuse.

        January 17, 2013 at 10:44 pm |
      • Keel Hauler

        Do everyone a favor and go suck a tailpipe, you septic-tank remnant.

        January 18, 2013 at 7:52 am |
    • DWFields

      Exactly who is holding the purse strings?

      It's not Obama. He has supported hiring more police. Rather, a certain group in Congress who shall remain nameless has done everything they can to stop funding for all Emergency Responders–no matter their duty to the People.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:09 pm |
  56. lagunalady27

    I taught in public secondary schools for over forty years. I remember when every secondary school in California had SRO's. It was fabulous. They often diffused problems before they could get really bad. Sometimes, they learned about situations in the planning and avoided them altogether. Everyone felt safer then, because they were.

    About twenty years ago everything changed. People stopped caring about kids, their education and even their safety. I don't know why this happened, but it was obvious. If you want to know what people value, look to where they spend (or don't spend) their money.

    School nurses, librarians, required P.E. for all, real kitchens with real food, instructional supplies and even SRO's were plentiful in the past, but rare in schools now. Why? Follow the money. They were eliminated years before our recent economic downturn. Why? Who benefitted from their elimination? Follow the money.

    January 17, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
    • DWFields

      Or rather– follow the LACK of money. Our education system budgets have barely moved or–if anything–gone down over the years as compared to the average economy. Our schools simply cannot afford what they once provided and certain groups go out of their way to reduce that funding even more.

      Oh, sure, they claim they're trying to save each of us money, but all they're doing is routing that money into other pockets and special interests that pay THEM big bucks.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:15 pm |
  57. KatTrax

    Banning guns is just a placebo, a false sense of security. If some crazed lunatic really wanted to harm school children, they will acquire a weapon of some kind. Background checks would not have prevented the Sandy Hook disaster because the shooter did not purchase the weapon. You can't punish the owner of the gun because she's dead too.

    January 17, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
    • M.

      You are right about one thing. If someone wants to kill they will find a way. I just don't believe we should make it easier...it's the same like if someone wants to drink and drive they will...yes they will...doesn't mean we should just ignore it and get rid of controls and laws.

      January 17, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
      • Robert

        It's a good idea, but realistically, in order for this to be effective, EVERY classroom has to have an armed officer. Who's gonna pay all their salary? And retirement & lifetime medical expenses

        January 17, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
      • Robert

        And also, schools are a place of learning. With all those officers armed to the teeth, how the hell will that offer an environment conducive to learning?

        If you want the kids to be absolutely safe, ban all public and private schools. Problem solved.

        January 17, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
      • M.

        You are absolutely correct, Robert. I would not send my child to a school with weapons in the building. Who will protect the children from the armed officers and teachers if they go bonkers? I do not want to live in a society where I have to have armed protection at all times to feel safe.

        January 17, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
      • mory

        Robert and M.- you are right as shown by this latest tragedy. Should guns not have been allowed in that school, they would all now be here with us still. (Tongue in cheek- seriously) What I would like to know, really, is how often police officers in your town have gone nuttso and blown away citizens as they walk down the street? How maby such stories have you read? Honestly.

        January 17, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
      • Leo

        M. and Robert, I think you guys are onto something. While we're at it let's ask bad guys to stop committing burglaries/robberies/rapes/kidnappings/theft/extortion/ and stuff and that way we don't need cops with guns either! Anywhere! Forever! Brilliant!

        Drop the doobies and welcome to the real world.

        Guns are here to stay.

        January 17, 2013 at 6:48 pm |
      • Khym

        Robert and M, I agree with you. Rather than armed guards in schools we should put up signs outside the schools warning bad people that they can't commit hideous crimes on school property.

        January 17, 2013 at 10:47 pm |
    • DWFields

      The first thing we need to do is change a certain mind-set. Banning a certain TYPE of gun is NOT banning all guns. Once that fact percolates through some very thick skulls, maybe they will realize that the 2nd Amendment is still safe.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
  58. Are U serious

    Did somebody just say that an assault rifle costs $20,00-100.000??
    And yes an AR15 is an assault rifle there bud. Just say "NO" man.

    January 17, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
    • Ron V

      Uhhm, no. An AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle. An M-16 is, as is an M4, or an Israeli Galil, or an H&K G36C. Assault Rifles have by definition a select fire capability, which an AR-15 does not. An AR-15 has a safety, which most guns have, it’s an on/off switch, and it takes a human to move it from one position to the other. One allows the user to shoot the weapon, the other does not.

      There are many fully automatic weapons in civilian hands, in case you didn’t know. They are completely legal to possess, and not one that has been legally obtained has been used to commit a crime since 1934. Not one. Why? Because there is an extensive process in place to license civilian owners of fully automatic weapons in our country.

      Here is the problem with the conversation that needs to be had concerning gun violence in our country. Both sides need to know what they are talking about. So far it’s been my experience that gun owners know the difference between an Assault Rifle and a Semi-Automatic Rifle, and non-gun owners don’t. If we want to have this conversation, both parties need to understand the basics and put their emotions in the closet. Both sides are emotional on this subject, but only rational discourse on the subject is ever going to lead to meaningful and actual change about the levels of violence in our country. If you bring your emotions to the discussion table then you deserve all the derision you will get for making that decision.

      January 17, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
      • Rob Burton

        FINALLY !!!! Somebody that knows what their talking about. Hats off to Ron V. All the gun-grabbers out there simply do not have any clue to the difference in firearms. They think if its black and modern looking it must be an assault weapon.Banning semi-auto AR-15's will only keep law abiding citizens from being able to buy them. However they have been available to citizens since the 1960's and in fact were made for the civillian market. Looks to me that the so called school resourse officers are they same thing the NRA recomended, armed police officers. All the gun-grabbers out there that think by banning them after the market estimates that over 10,000,000 are already in civillian hands are sadly mistaken. If a criminal wants one they will steal one from somebody that legally owns one. Unless of course they think we should pass a law that prohibits criminals from stealing guns.

        January 17, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
      • Khym

        Thank you Ron V. The endless spewing of ignorance on this subject is often fun to read but it's not advancing the discussion that needs to take place. The news media ought to be explaining this stuff but they have their own agenda to follow.

        January 17, 2013 at 10:54 pm |
      • DWFields

        M-16: Military Model 16 Combat Rifle
        AR-15: Assault Rifle 15 - a non-fully-automatic version of the M-16.

        How can that be any clearer?

        January 18, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
      • DWFields

        Oh, and by the way, even the M-16, M-4 and other MILITARY rifles have "safeties"–that switch that prevents the weapon from firing unless manually moved by the operator.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
  59. John Jones

    Isn't it a sad commentary that we have armed guards and metal detectors at courthouses and other public places where adults are, but not where our children are.

    January 17, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • Leo

      THANK YOU!!!

      January 17, 2013 at 6:50 pm |
  60. Josh

    Here's an idea, just put new police stations next to the school. It is a deterrent and reduces response times to school violence.

    January 17, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • Diamond

      Society needs to change, not schools.

      January 17, 2013 at 2:06 pm |
      • mory

        Society is like an amoeba- it changes s l o w l y all the time. The problem is we do not agree on the types of change it should take- some say more guns some say fewer. Chances are you will not see society as you wish in your life time BUT you can see an individual in each and every school protecting our children tomorrow- how would that be for a quick spcietal change! Hmmmmm...which to do?

        January 17, 2013 at 3:30 pm |
    • Khym

      When our local police department wanted to move into newer, better quarters in a largely residential area of town there was opposition because some people felt that there might be shoot outs, high speed pursuits and scuffles with criminals.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:57 pm |
  61. Kweso

    There's always money to be made from every tragedy. Let the hiring begin.

    January 17, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • Leo

      No thanks for your wastefull comment. Completely unproductive.

      January 17, 2013 at 6:52 pm |
  62. Abob

    Each classroom needs to have an alarm button, and to be armed. Not armed with a gun that could shoot through walls, but armed with a couple of cans of bear spray.

    January 17, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
  63. Steve

    Why stop with schools? Let's put police in movie theaters, malls, department stores because that's where these sick people are going to go.

    January 17, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • pro-gun

      This is why law abiding citizens are and should be allowed to CCW. As members of a free society, we are ultimately responsible for our well being. Depending on others only leads you down the path of dependacncy and ultimately servitude.

      January 17, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
    • Khym

      Anyone with a concealed carry permit is able to do this however, gun owners are demonized as dangerous fanatics.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:04 pm |
  64. Jake

    There are these types of officers at my kids private school, but they are not police. It might sound silly to have police type guards at a K-8 school, but the main reason they are there is to mediate child custody situations. The school had too many problems with teachers getting in between feuding parents, even parents trying to take kids when there was a restraining order. It's good to have someone like that on campus looking out for problems. The school security even caught a little austic boy's attempt to escape the school, something that happens far more reguarly at public schools where kids have an easier time just wandering off.

    January 17, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
  65. Jack Halbert

    Police in schools is just a placebo, a false sense of security. If some crazed lunatic really wanted to shoot at school children, they don't even have to enter the school. It's more important to have realistic background checks, including what types of psychotropic or psychiatric medications someone is on at the time. If you look at most of the shootings, there are those medications involved. Wake up America and get to the root of the problem, instead of polishing the turd!

    January 17, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • Jake

      If you want to ban anyone who's taken any psychiatric medication from owning a gun, then a majority of the country won't be able to own a gun. These meds aren't just for crazy people. Someone could be on those types of meds for migranes, insomnia, fibromalyga, to quit smoking, etc. The gov't has no right poking around anyone's health history unless there is a valid reason ie a mentally ill person who's been deemed by a court to be a danger to himself or others. Americans have a right to own a gun even if they took Ritalin as a kid or have a script for Trazadone to get to sleep.

      January 17, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
      • Josh

        And such a ban would influence people not to go to the doctor and report mental health problem in the first place.

        January 17, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • Khym

      Requiring people on medication to register themselves with the authorities (or whatever it is you propose to do) is going to convince some people not to seek help for their problems.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:07 pm |
  66. Bill Miller

    School guards make a lot of sense and about four sounds about right. I think it's worthless to call in a swat team after it's all over, I mean it's kinda late then. Schools need armed guards BEFORE the shooting starts not after.

    January 17, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
  67. S Bradford

    SROs may be a feel good reaction but have been shown to have no impact on school safety. Instead, especially in schools that are low-income or of color, they contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline and involve more kids in the justice system, something that has lasting negative consequences. Often SROs arrest or cite kids for behavior that has traditionally been handled within the school.

    January 17, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
  68. allens

    2 of the schools i attended in los angeles had armed police officers assigned to the schools. my high school had 2. they may have worked for the lapd or the school system, not sure. most students respected them and they were very good at what they did. during the watts riots, rioters stayed clear of our school (it was close to where the action was). they roamed the campus, you never knew where they would show up. they kept outsiders out and kept us in line. i appreciated them then, and now more than ever. not perfect, but they helped a great deal.

    January 17, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
  69. anon

    Officers are okay for a temporary solution, but I think a better solution would be to employ combat veterans to the positions. They are looking for work anyway, and as long as they pass a psychological evaluation, they would be absolutely PERFECT for the job. They are combat veterans, so they have already been in fire fights, and are less likely to freeze up and hide under a desk somewhere. They would give the kids much needed moral support and feelings of safety, and it would no doubt be very therapuetic for them in their own pain and healing of their own war trauma to be around children like that. It's a win win on all fronts. I'm suprised no one has brought up the idea.

    January 17, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
    • Bill Miller

      What a good idea! A trained vet would be perfect for the job and like you said they need work too. I also think school kids would respect a vet even more than a policeman.

      January 17, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • GOD of the GUNS

      not all vets have been in combat

      January 17, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
      • bob

        thats why it says "combat veterans" not just "veterans".

        January 17, 2013 at 3:30 pm |
      • GOD of the GUNS

        Bob – not all "combat vets" see action

        January 17, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
      • anon

        Just to clear up the confusion, when I said combat vets, I meant soldiers who had actually been involved in actual combat. I had assumed that was a given when I mentioned how being around kids would help the healing process, and the need for making SURE they passed a psych eval.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:51 am |
    • Sharon

      Hm, while I am incredibly supportive of our veterans the high incidence of PTSD, and especially violent PTSD, makes me think that combat veterans in our schools as some form of security detail is not a good idea.

      On the general idea of these police school resource officers – they can be good. Unfortunately many studies have shown they seem to escalate minor incidents that should be handled as a school situation into a police situation – increasing the "school to Juvenile Detention" pipeline that can ruin kids who are already at risk.

      January 17, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
  70. Paul

    I think police are needed at schools. Since parents are no longer doing their jobs as parents there needs to be some form of structure and law that needs to be maintained for a safe and healthy environment. Children are raising themselves these days and have no roll model to follow. I believe a Police officer would be a good roll model for the students to all learn from.

    January 17, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
    • Paul

      Like someone previously stated. The problems start at the home and weed their way into the school system. If there weren't so many broken families and parents spent time with their children there wouldn't be as many problems.

      January 17, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • Steve

      I love this argument...since the parents arent doing their job, and we dont expect them too...we should let the police at their schools be parents to them.

      Does anyone else realize what a sorry, sad statement this is about America? Jesus, people are just too stupid to breed in this country anymore.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:11 am |
  71. You gotta be kidding

    What a self serving article.
    Police have no place in our schools.
    How many badly needed teachers could be paid by reutilizing the money paid for police in schools?
    Why can't screened volunteers provide the same services without the cuffs and guns?
    The taxpayer is overloaded and all levels of government must get smaller.

    January 17, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
    • Master Blaster

      After Newtown if I were a teacher, and the school didn't hire a SRO, I'd quit. To much danger for $40,000 or less a year!

      January 17, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
      • PUABS

        Please work on that punctuation and spelling.... I don't think anybody would hire you as a teacher, so don't worry your poor little head about it. BTW, I wen't to military school where I was taught how to... guess what,,,, shoot a gun. I qualified as an expert marksman. My education was not communist. My education was actually quite unique. We were taught to take care of our own. It didn't matter what coler you were, where you came from or what your belief system was. It's the team mentality that carries the group across the finish line, together! It's a "we" society instead of your "me" society. That's socialism! So, please consider the children you've just left behind in that school to fend for themselves. Just try to make this world better place for all of us, not just yourself. And,... Ronald Reagan also called on Congress for regluation against military style weapons such as AK's and large capaciity clips. Look it up, Rush won't mention it!

        January 17, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
      • anon

        I think it is great that you went to military school and learned to handle a gun. Gun practice is the first step, and it is great that you are an expert marksmen. However, the REAL test of you gun handling and aiming abilities comes when you are face to face with someone else with a gun, trying to kill you. Who comes out of THAT one alive is what counts.

        There is a HUGE difference between target practice, and being willing to pull the trigger on another human being. Totally different world, and veterans who have been involved in firefights HAVE that. Also, the higher up you go in law enforcement, the more professional the people tend to be. A military soldier who's been in combat is about as high up as you can go.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:10 pm |
    • Ian Grunewald

      " You gotta be kidding" You have no idea what you are tallking about and Im speaking as a left wing NON NRA teacher!!! Having an SRO in a school is probably one of the best community minded policing moves that schools and cities can do. We have had an SRO for a number of years and his connection to the kids has helped lower crime in the area, kept disipline issues down and kids that have NEVER considered policiing as an option are actually thinking of serving. Our SRO has been a football coach a track coach a teacher/mentor and exactly what our community needed. I dont want screened volunteers as what is needed is for our kids to see officers as HUMANS. The SRO isnt there to arrest you hes there to work with you to teach you and if necessary to protect you. Oh and as to the taxpayer thing....One SRO in the school lowers crime rates in and around a highschool meaning less taxpayer money spent on locking people up doing investigations etc...the SRO program is a WIN WIN for everyone!

      January 17, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
      • Gordon Jones

        Thankyou Ian. Almost the first position cut at our school district last year was the School Resource Officer. Assume that cut was recommended by school administrator. Unfortunately, most school boards just rubber stamp proposals brought to them by school administrators. Clearly cutting that position was short sited.
        In addition to School Resource Officers we need more teachers mingling with the students in the lunch room, outside on the campus etc. Only then will school staff get a real feel for who needs help and attention. Again, thanks for your invaluable input.

        January 17, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
      • You gotta be kidding

        The reality of government programs is they exist to generate tax revenue and to grow government.
        The police cannot interrogate a minor without an adult present, why would you allow your minor children to interact with the police (5th amendment) without adult protection?
        Fact of life – children act up. Getting law enforcement involved is just not necessary and starts involvement with the criminal justice system at a very early age thus allowing government to cite the numbers as a reason they always need more....

        January 17, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
      • tired of bs

        I couldn't agree more. Some of the respondents seem to think the SRO is just there to catch a kid doing something wrong–the truth is that they are the exact opposite. They make the police seem more approachable and caring, and they do have an affect on the kids that are "on the edge" of doing something wrong. Their job in responding to horrible crimes is only a small fraction of the job they do. In response to You've Gotta Be Kiddding–they aren't there to interrogate kids and take over for school discipline. In most cases, the teacher/administration still does as they've always done in regards to bad behavior. The SRO does give them, however, a good resource when kids do things like bring drugs, guns, etc. In my kids' school, the SRO is loved by almost all of the kids because he cares, answers questions, and provides a positive presence in and around the school.

        January 17, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
      • b0bc4t

        Excellent analysis of the positive contributions of the School Resource Officer, thank you!

        January 17, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
    • b0bc4t

      The police are trained to handle complex situations and deal with the problems that may erupt in the moment. Would you rather a volunteer like the community watch guy that shot Trayvon Martin be the answer to an unruly child? The police are also better able to mobilize the local law enforcement and guide any such response that is necessary, under the guidance of administrators, with the benefit of law enforcment guidance, instead of educational guidance. They have nurses in school, due to their specialized training, would you answer a armed action at the school with the chess club advisor, the janitor, or someone trained in crisis management and threat response? Keep the police in place.

      January 17, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
    • Khym

      How many badly needed police officers could we pay for if we weren't sending aid to places like Egypt?

      January 17, 2013 at 11:10 pm |
    • Keel Hauler

      One of the most ignorant comments I've seen in weeks, and I've seen ten's of thousands.

      January 18, 2013 at 7:55 am |
    • Steve

      Havent you heard from the Right...teachers are overpaid and underworked. They dont really contribute anything to society other than being drains financially.

      Ask Wisconsin, they can tell you all about it.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:13 am |
  72. Hema Chauhan

    I think that schools could do without officers, if there was some sort of reform where all schools, regardless of public or private practiced the same rules. All schools should implement uniform, regardless of whether you go to public or private. This would first eliminate any status issues amongst students, and students will feel that they are going to school, there is some form of discipline (which this country needs!) and they are more focused on actually learning, instead what clothes and jewelry, etc.. is cool, it would minimize peer pressure, bullying, etc...Also there should be strict policies on what is worn at school ALONG with uniforms. Examples are; no nail polish, no chewing gums, no flashy jewelry, no sneakers, hair must be not kept long, etc... When these simple things are done, you can bet that kids all over the country will learn what it means to respect teachers and education! That is not what the US is teaching in this country and that's why kids are not learning but instead are killing each other! This should start from the beginning of school to high school. And the only difference between public and private schools, would probably be the fact that private school students would have a higher educational experience as compared to public. You wonder why other countries are superior to education, it's because of this simple rule! Why should we have enforcement on the school premises? It's not a prison! But in any case, I think to be still on the safe side. School staff should have something like "Life Alert" around their necks to press in case of panic!

    January 17, 2013 at 11:53 am |
    • Master Blaster

      Isn't that what the communist do with their school children? If you don't like it here, simple move to China. They don't allow gun owner ship. What ever you do for a living, that job is probably there! After all the government you are blindly following has sent 4.7 million of our jobs over there

      January 17, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
      • PUABS

        Correction to your "jobs overseas" lie, this country's greedy CEO's have sent those jobs overseas to improve the bottom line, not this country's government! Stop listening to the AM talk shows and expand your information sources. You could also work on spelling, you look like a typical illiterate GOP goof!

        January 17, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
    • M

      I honestly doubt uniforms will change a thing. I dated a girl who went to a "well disciplined" school with uniforms and she was bullied every day for years.

      January 17, 2013 at 12:09 pm |
    • Matt

      What's with this assumption that private schools are better than public schools?

      It's also possible to teach children to respect without running the place like a totalitarian dictatorship.

      January 17, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • b0bc4t

      Very nice theory, but it is hardly practical or practicable in today's society. Even military schools would have a tough time getting students to follow those strict guidelines today. Your vision is like a step back in time, to early private school discipline, which has faded from existence. Plus the neck buzzer thing would be useless when a violent situation exists, the buzzers being pressed simultaneously by the entire student body would offer no response to the situation.
      Parents and students alike would never sit for such regimented authority for their 'priviledged child", and do you know what school uniforms cost the poorest family .... meals, choices. I agree your ideal learning environment would be ..... IDEAL!

      January 17, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
      • Steve

        "the buzzers being pressed simultaneously by the entire student body would offer no response to the situation"

        The post said just the staff, not all the students too. Sounds like a good idea actually. Reading comprehension...its important!

        January 18, 2013 at 10:17 am |
    • Leo

      I dunno. Sounds too... fascist.

      January 17, 2013 at 6:55 pm |
      • Steve

        LOL...but armed guards in the schools isnt?

        Maybe you need to brush up on the term "fascist".

        January 18, 2013 at 10:18 am |
  73. Eric

    SROs can be valuable. But they are not a panacea. Columbine HS in Colorado had an SRO when thirteen people were killed. I don't think even a second SRO would have changed things.

    January 17, 2013 at 11:34 am |
    • veteran leo

      Columbine had a SRO who did indeed trade gunfire with the murderers, at a distance...then he did what he was trained to do, which was establish a perimeter and call SWAT. Training is vastly different now, with officers trained to eliminate the threat ASAP, even if it means going up against them alone. As one of my training officers put it, every bullet they're firing at police is not being fired at a student.

      January 17, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
      • Steve

        You miss the point that a skilled shooter will end the police threat and move on to the children. They had police at VA Tech too, what about that?

        January 18, 2013 at 10:19 am |
  74. Kim

    Very well written Kevin. My high school had a SRO and this was 1984-86. Everyone knew him and knew if you had a problem, you could go to him, just like the kids can come to you. My son's high school also had a SRO. As a parent, it did make a difference to me that I didn't have to worry as much about his safety. I totally agree every school should have at least two.

    January 17, 2013 at 11:08 am |
  75. Canadian Observer

    I agree with a lot of what the officer has to say however the large problem in the US from an outsiders point of view is Assault Rifles....Assault rifles were not made for hunting animals but for hunting people .There is no other expanation for them.Outside the US the big story is Piers Morgans interview with Alex Jones...That interview went viral across the world.Mr Jones is a piece of work and shows what America has fallen into over the years...In Canada Mr Jones would not be given a Fire Arms acquistion permit after the firearms licensing officer watched his tv interview as the officer would be lead to believe Mr Jones is unstable mentally.I urge all Americans to look to countries such as Canada,The UK,France ,Australia etc.....for some answers on gun control.In Canada Assault rifles are banned and can not be bought by Joe citizen.Handguns are few because of our strict laws...Lets talk Murder rate...In Chicago 500-600 murders a year.Toronto which is 2.6 Million people approx 80 murders and guns are responsible for approx 40 .Montreal 2 million people 55-60 homicides a year...I wish the American public the best in their war on guns...

    January 17, 2013 at 11:05 am |
    • shut up eh?

      You don;t know what you're talking aboot.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:12 am |
      • Brad

        Are his facts wrong?

        January 17, 2013 at 11:48 am |
      • Rob

        Yes Brad, they are. The average person in the US cannot buy an assault rifle.

        On top of costing $20,000-$100,000 dollars, you have to go through months(sometimes years) of background checks and spend a lot of money on federal licenses to own assault rifles.

        If, like most people who open their mouth without knowing a thing about guns, he means things like the AR-15, then you and he should know, those are NOT assault rifles(and for the pithy "then what does AR stand for" comments, it stands for Armalite Rifle). They are NOT fully automatic, they CANNOT fire bursts of rounds with a single pull of the trigger(these are the 2 defining characteristics of assault rifles).

        January 17, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • Jeff

      Assualt rifles are not allowed in majority of states in the US. Guns that look like assualt rifles which fire one bullet per trigger squeeze are allowed. unfortunately because people are so uninformed they get scared because they look like the weapons you see on the news that troops are using overseas. People a semi -auto rifle is NOT an assualt rifle!! a pump action shotgun can be fired almost as quickly. NY and Chicago have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and how is that working for them??? They are two of the most if not the most violent cities in America!

      I actually think the 23 points Obama came up with yesterday made a lot of sense but stupid senators like my Californian rep Feinstein trying to ban a rifle because it has a psitol grip or foldable stock and looks scary to uneducated people is just plain ridiculous.

      January 17, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
      • JCK

        I wonder where the term Assault Rifle came from ? I spent two years in Vietnam and at different times I carried either an M-2 Carbine, an M-16 , a CAR-15 and on three operations an AK-47. I never heard that term used to describe these rifles.

        January 17, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
    • b0bc4t

      Gun Control is an issue that really invokes powerful emotions, sometimes to the detriment of the discussion.
      I agree that the NRA advocate who berated Piers Morgan about his views on assault weapons was highly excitable and held extreme positions. I also saw many Piers Morgan interviews in which he had one overriding mantra .... The assault rifle was used in the last four massacres, what lawful purpose do they serve? While he spoke with a woman gun advocate, he drowned out her every response and point she tried to make, which, much like these debates, the speakers, hold two polarized opinions, each who may or may not be open to hearing the other,. There is so much rhetoric on both sides, that very few exchanges of opinions occur, just noise bouncing at each other, neither side ever fully grasping the other, or even willing to receive the words being spoken. This woman tried to offer Piers the answers to his questions, stating the ease of use of an AR-15, as a woman of smaller stature, versus a large unwieldy rifle. There was no getting through to Piers, who only wanted to barage her with recounting the amount of bullets released in the short time frame of the Aurora shooting. Piers has the narrow focus of having lived in Brittain, lived through a national gun ban, confiscation of weapons, lived without ANYONE having / needing a firearm, and was adamant that while the US did not follow suit, it was both unbelievable to him, and anyone who would not relent, was not sensible or of an opinion that mattered. The woman finally let him speak his diatribe, and accepted that there would be no EXCHANGE of ideas with him, Pier's mind was CLOSED.
      He did have a better discussion with an actor who stated his reasons for gun ownership, admitted to not owning assault rifles, and also agreed that the US has an unhealthy fascination with both guns and violent games. As long as he could expound on his opinion without getting pushback from his guest, Piers had no trouble in perceiving himself as the winner of the discussion, and the actor did not want to take the role of preaching from his lofty Hollywood lifestyle.
      Ultimately, I still believe it is the mind of the gun owner / shooter that ultimately drives the outcome of any situation in which guns play a part. I would not be comfortable with either Mr. Jones OR Piers Morgan being armed, especially during the heat of their argument, when either one would be a candidate for a mental health commitment / evaluation.

      January 17, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
      • Steve

        The main problem is no one can answer as to WHY they needa high powered rifle with a high capacity magazine for anything other than killing people. I understand people hunt but there are plenty of hunting rifles, almost to no end.

        The problem for the gun advocates is they NEED large capacity magazines...to attack other people, or to take on a govt that has weapons that make their guns look like cap pistols, really. I mean, do you need 2 high capacity magazines to hunt deer? Are you that poor of a shot and if so, maybe you should spend a little more time at the range.

        Not to mention, these people are defending the monsters that kill people with these weapons as they continually aregue they need high powered ammo as well. Did you know that the shooter here in Aurora, had steel core bullets, made specifically to tear through flesh and penetrate multiple targets.

        Thats for killing people, I'm a veteran and I know for sure, thats all these rounds were designed for, killing multiple targets in a crowded environment. But the gun lobby and these gun nuts will tell you they need armor piercing rounds, they need steel core, they need Talon split-hollow points...all to kill a human being, nothing more.

        January 18, 2013 at 10:26 am |
    • Khym

      So once again: What is an assault rifle? Warning, if you what you describe is actually a fully automatic weapon, i.e. a machine gun, a firearm which is already tightly regulated then you are expressing an opinion on a subject you know nothing about. Please stop doing this because you add nothing to the discussion.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:16 pm |
      • Steve

        An assault rifle is a weapon that was formerly used in military or police applications that has been repurposed, through cosmetic or mechanical modification, to suit the needs of civilian personnel. The term "assault rifle" generally addresses the appearance of the weapon, but is meant to identify the weapon as used in assaults by the military and police as SOP.

        Let me ask...why do they call a target rifle a target rifle?...why do they call a hunting rifle a hunting rifle? Because thats its intended use, as "assault" was these particular weapons usage prior to them being made available to the general public.

        Hope that clears things up for you.

        January 18, 2013 at 10:33 am |
  76. Ben

    Whatever. I'm just sooooo glad my kids are out of school. Something really bad is going on in schools and it doesn't appear that any of the ideas to fix it address the actual problem.

    January 17, 2013 at 10:59 am |
    • Booseyboo

      The problems began at home and have filtered into the schools.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:04 am |
  77. Veronica

    I'm glad to hear that there is such a thing. That certainly is MUCH, MUCH better than the idea of arming teachers/school staff who may not be psychologically equipped to deal with situations as well as you. Young teens aren't the only ones suffering from mental disorders, after all. Bravo and more power to you!

    January 17, 2013 at 10:51 am |
  78. mcdonaldv

    why is it that no one bothers to look at responsible gun owning . my guns are locked in a steel safe with trigger locks . my ammunition is locked up somewhere else and only i have the keys .

    January 17, 2013 at 10:49 am |
    • Vin King

      According to the left, you are a murderer waiting for your opportunity.

      January 17, 2013 at 3:30 pm |
    • Khym

      How wonderfully OCD of you. What happens if you really,really need one of your guns?

      January 17, 2013 at 11:18 pm |
      • Mike

        That's what quick-release safes are for. Simple combo, push buttons, dead burglar.

        January 17, 2013 at 11:34 pm |
      • Steve

        Ammo is somewhere else according the the OP...so an empty gun does you no good.

        Good luck with that

        January 18, 2013 at 10:36 am |
  79. Smoke and mirrors

    Wow! What an awesome responsibility. I commend SROs for their service. We need more!

    January 17, 2013 at 10:48 am |
  80. aurelius

    If I had kids of that age, I'd send them overseas to study and be safe.

    January 17, 2013 at 10:15 am |
  81. Mary Leonhardt

    As a high school teacher for 35 years, I want to second Officer Quinn’s comments. A school resource officer is probably not going to be able to take down a shooter armed with two semi-automatics, 30 bullet magazines, and dressed in bullet-proof gear, but he will have made sure that all preventive measures possible have been taken. And if sensible gun regulations are passed, the officer can be very effective indeed in dealing with a shooter.

    Plus there are all of the other services Officer Quinn mentioned. I have seen the program in action, and applaud it.


    January 17, 2013 at 9:45 am |
    • Smoke and mirrors

      Been in Executive Protection for over 20. SROs should have more resources for confronting a semi-automatic wielding murderer. If anyone needs an M-4 with 30 round magazines they do. There are a wide range of gun safes to store them in... Concealed would be best.
      Additionally, classroom protection can be improved with easy off the shelf items like door barricades, panic buttons, and more book shelves. Did you know books are bullet proof? Myth Busters even did an experiment about it... You can find it on YouTube. Every school has books and book shelves. The idea is to make every classroom a safe room without looking like a bunker.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:36 am |
    • dan

      You do realize bulletproof vests don't work like in games or movies? All because the bullet isn't entering the body doesn't mean your internal organs aren't slammed with a force of 1200 feet per second or ribs broken like pencils. If lanza had been shot by even a 9mm he would have been incapacitated, likely coughing up blood and unable to do anything regardless of the vest. Machine guns are full auto, lanza didn't have a machine gun. People here make comments without any idea of what they are talking about. ARs aren't god-mode weapons that turn you into an expert marksman. Nor are they meant for killing "scores of people". the high rate of fire is for suppression so that you can keep an assailant behind cover while you move to a better position. Learn the facts before you regurgitate what that toolbag piers morgan spouts off in order to keep his ratings up.

      January 17, 2013 at 8:24 pm |
      • Steve

        The aurora shooter was wearing class IV full body armor, face armor, and had numerous weapons, some with steel core armor piercing ammo (available over the counter at your local sporting goods store). The SRO (or two) would be dead and then the kids, no question, if you have any clue as to what a full suit of class IV body armor is capable of withstanding.

        You underestimate crazy.

        January 18, 2013 at 10:39 am |
      • Steve

        "ARs aren't god-mode weapons that turn you into an expert marksman. Nor are they meant for killing "scores of people". the high rate of fire is for suppression so that you can keep an assailant behind cover while you move to a better position"

        You were never in the military, your statement about AR's being only used for cover fire is ignorant and self-serving. What do you do when you get TO the enemy...thats right, shoot and kill them. If anyone is a toolbag here, it is you.

        January 18, 2013 at 10:41 am |
      • Hank

        Steve, I was in the Marines and much of what Dan says is true. An M-16 or AR 15 is basically just a souped up .22 rifle. The M-16 (unlike an AK) does require skill and precision. Something like a shot gun with a big magazine (which of course is very illegal) or a Glock with a clip of over 30 rounds is much more dangerous at close quarters than an AR 15 with comparable number of rounds. The real heart of the matter is magazine capacity. The AR 15s used all had 30 round or bigger mags. At close range, with any semi of any caliber with that big of a mag, its like shooting fish in a barrel.

        January 18, 2013 at 3:33 pm |
  82. Cynthia Rowley

    I found this very interesting and knowledgeable. Home schooling can also be an alternative to your childs safety. I find educational materials on smart-educational-resources-us.blogspot.it/

    January 17, 2013 at 5:33 am |