I don't get it......a few years ago, when living in FL, my kids had a deputy assigned to their school as a "SRO" or "School Resource Officer". All public schools had a deputy. The SRO at my kids school obviously cared much about kids, interacted with them positively on a daily basis, provided a great role model and provided a presence that detered not only violence from outside, but within the school as well. He was also instrumental at "defusing" a few situations that I'm aware of that could have escalated quite easily had an LEO presence not been around.
I now hear some liberals on the slimestream media stating that they do not want LEO's in schools, as it may "traumatize the children" or "create an atmosphere like a jail, with locked doors and police with guns".
What utter hogwash.......yet more proof that the real agenda is to destroy the 2A, and unfortunately many liberals have decided to exploit this tragedy to further that very cause. Thoughts??? :mad:
Merry Christmas to all.... :santaclaus:
Having an LEO at a school is a good deterrent, but costs money. Allowing legally armed citizens to carry in schools costs nothing and is just as good a deterrent.
I agree to a point, but on the other hand we spend BILLIONS of tax $$ on things that make a lot less sense. Personally, I'd rather have the LEO in my kid's school.
Originally Posted by BenGoodLuck
During my LAST job, the SRO worked out of my office. He was an extremely valuable resource. He had been around for many years, knew the kids, older siblings, and most of the parents.
There were many times that I couldn't get to the bottom of a problem, but the kids would open to him...he almost always could get hidden info.
Many times we would plan "Good cop/bad cop(AP)"...it worked quite well.
With dwindling funds, the county had him cover 4-5 schools, with his primary time being with the older high school students.
Our experiences were similar. Seems like a better use of tax dollars that so much of the waste that goes on every day.
Originally Posted by retsupt99
A letter I submitted to our local news paper:
I don’t always agree with what the NRA says, but I have said for several years that there should be police in every school. I don’t understand why people are apposed to this. We teach our children that the police are there to help and if they are ever in trouble or need help to go to a police officer. Yet some don’t want them in our schools. I don’t understand this.
The cost if placing officers was estimated at almost 3 billion dollars and the complaint is where is the money going to come from. As a nation we are constantly sending our military to other countries that need “assistance”. We spend trillions of dollars “protecting” the citizens (including children) of these countries, we arm rebels (ironic we arm rebels to overturn governments but don’t want to allow our citizens to have firearms), but we are unwilling to divert some of these funds to protect our own citizens. This is mind-boggling.
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington.
I'm currently in the Navy reserves, have been for 13 years plus 4 years active duty. I'd give up but one day a week for free to be trained to handle situations in any of my schools armed with what I felt like I needed like a police officer has if there could be enough vollanteers to help threw out this conuntry just the same. OR, put me on a payroll for a mear $35,000 with the same amount of training as police have for I'm certain they make far more than what I'd even requested. All in all though I'd still offer up 1 day free to be that roll model in schools. I try to make an effort once a month to be a roll model for the kids when I put my Navy uniform on to visit schools anyways.