A few years ago, about the most a student could expect regarding security at his or her high school might be an overzealous hall monitor or a teacher with a passion for handing out detentions for running in the hallway. Obviously, times have changed.
Friday’s horrific shooting in Newtown, Conn., points to a very disturbing fact: Senseless violence can strike anywhere, even at an elementary school.
Some of our local schools are fortunate to have law enforcement officers on campus. These school resource officers are often the first and only line of defense when it comes to dealing with danger on campus. That was certainly the case in 2010 when Sullivan Central High School’s resource officer stood between the school’s principal and a man who entered the school waving a handgun. That same resource officer, Sullivan County Sheriff’s Deputy Carolyn Gudger, also helped the principal escape to safety before other responding deputies shot and killed 62-year-old Richard Cowan of Kingsport.
Time and time again, school resource officers have professionally handled potentially dangerous situations in local schools. Whether they are walking the hallways of the local high school or riding a county school bus, these resource officers are helping to keep our children safe. It’s often tempting during tough budget times for elected officials to consider cutting these positions. That would be a mistake.
In Unicoi County, Sheriff Mike Hensley is seeking financial assistance from the town of Erwin to place a school resource officer in Unicoi Elementary School.
“We absolutely have to take care of our children and grandchildren (who go) to school,” Hensley said. “My intention is to do whatever it takes to take care of those children.”
Which brings us to a question some have asked: How much should taxpayers be asked to shoulder for school safety?
Perhaps that is the wrong question. Maybe we should ask: How can we in good conscience refuse to pay whatever it takes to keep our students safe?
wonderferret writes:
January 1, 2013
1:00 PM
Sadly the slang doesn't help your case, but it is a clear-cut case to me, too.
As Dan Mahoney said in the article published today, “Half of [local people buying assault-style weapons after the CT massacre] didn’t know what [assault-style weapons] looked like.”
We are kidding ourselves to think people in this area care about children. Our local gun dealer "encourages" people to "educate themselves" and has the biggest sales since 1994 atop the fresh graves of kindergarteners. No one has to take classes. People buying guns here didn't even know what to expect when they went in to buy them. How are you supposed to protect your family when you have a loaded gun that can shoot through walls and you don't even know how to use it?
I come from a long line of stupid people from around this area, one of which died after he shot himself in the femoral artery with a handgun when he got spooked at a gathering. Does every family just need a lesson like that? Mental illness doesn't cover accidents or stupid, and with all the elderly people we have around here, I can assure you that it doesn't cover senility, either.
We should be asked about school safety whenever we as a culture put enough importance on math that at least 25% of people can answer those shared Facebook images using parentheses and order of operations. Care about your kids, people, even if you don't have any -- care about someone's kids. You can save a life in more ways than shooting "bad guys" with assault-style weapons.
bakerjw writes:
January 2, 2013
2:50 PM
The patterns that emerge in the mass shootings are the following.
- People suffering from mental illness. Many are young and medicated with SSRIs (many warnings about this). Some like Jard Loughner have even been known by the authorities to be problematic.
- Gun free zones. It is fine to have gun free zones, but security needs to be beefed up in them as they are very soft targets. There is no "Gun Free Zone" sign made that will stop someone intent on doing harm to others.
- The media frenzy. Anyone considering doing a mass shooting knows that over night they'll become a household name. Everyone will know them. It will be their moment of fame.
There are no easy answers, but ensuring that our children are not soft targets should be paramount.
DrPat writes:
January 2, 2013
3:56 PM
"Protecting children is worth any cost" is an attention-getting headline, but society has other needs, so spending all of our tax money on protecting children is absurd.
selfeducated writes:
January 6, 2013
3:14 AM
Would it not be cheaper in the long run, and actually more effective to arm, and train the teachers? I wouldn't think it would be a problem to include them in the police department's handgun training. Matter of fact, they might get some donations of pistols, ammo, etc. from local dealers. If I can't trust a teacher with a gun, I can't trust them with my child.
brave123 writes:
January 7, 2013
11:53 AM
i agree with self educated arm the teachers the teacher in the latest shooting protected the kids and i am certain that the ones around this area will do the same i know most of them around here and respect them. our childrens best interest is what they strive for so yes arm the teachers i trust the teachers more than anyone else.
DA2U writes:
January 8, 2013
2:01 PM
Arm the teachers? Ask a teacher about this one. How many teachers will we loose if this thinking became an action. What teacher in their right mind wants a job that has teachers patrolling the halls with guns or in the classrooms...........Are you nuts?