UDelaware prof opposes armed guards in schools…

… would set back the cause of gun control.

“There are clear drawbacks to having armed guards in schools. Implementing such a policy would actually put more youth at risk and might divert attention away from a robust discussion of, and progress on, gun control.”


8 thoughts on “UDelaware prof opposes armed guards in schools…”

  1. What a silly piece! Yet, some folks whom I think are very intelligent buy into stuff like this. Schools with armed guards have high crime rates. That’s like saying that police go where there are crimes and don’t go where the crime rate is low. it seems that the good professor is more concerned about gun control than protecting potential victims.

    “Virginia Tech had armed police and it didn’t stop the shooting.” This is like saying there should be no murders in any city because they have armed police. The Tech campus is ~2,600 acres with about 40,000 students, faculty and support staff. This city-sized school has a police force of less than 50, total. No, there were not armed guards at every building. I believe they did stop the killings. When the police entered Scott Hall, the killer stopped and killed himself.
    Columbine had one officer who was eating lunch in the parking lot when the shooting started. He exchanged fire but didn’t enter the building. He likely distracted the shooters. I believe the 20-20 hindsight is that the overall police response was slow. However, the killers stopped and committed suicide just after SWAT entered the building.
    In both cases, armed response very likely saved lives.

  2. Washington post just doesn’t like a lot of computer networks (like probably all our jobs, I notice a boom of 9A-5P, especially around lunch). It’s there.

    About his post. It’s worth reading and considering, but in the end, I reject his argument as flawed and speculative. The mere presence of police or security does not cause a police state mentality, and I remember many more Vice Principals with chips on their shoulders than security guards (for one, the guards are dedicated to security, not punishment, and they are accountable directly for their job in security).

    The final point, though, is quite good. Both Virgina Tech and Columbine had armed security (even University Cops have guns). Neither of them were able to prevent their tragedies. Cops in schools can help with chronic trouble, but no one and nothing can prevent someone from imitating the Matrix if they are suicidal enough.

  3. The doctor is a decadent jerk.

    “But their presence [police] has effects that help transform the school from an environment of academia to a site of criminal law enforcement. Issues that might otherwise be seen as mental health or social problems can become policing matters once an officer is stationed in a school.”

    The issue before the public eye is nut cases opening fire on children. The doctor is correct, but there is a much greater issue. Only when children are safe from murder can you address Little Johny’s sensitive psyche.

  4. Too bad the article disappeared from the Washington Post website. Couldn’t find it re-published elsewhere, either. I wanted to find out more about the *college professor*, such as how much he teaches about guns, or how much he’s studied their use in a school environment.

    My guess is, he’s just making $|-|!+ up.

  5. “clear drawbacks to having armed guards in schools”

    Like actually mitigating the problem without need to disarm law abiding citizens? Aside from the cost of the guards, I fail to see any drawbacks at all. But I’m no politician, so I’m unqualified to have an opinion, let alone speak.

    Herr Professor is being paid by the state to educate YOUR children. Heck, sue him for malpractice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.