News |   Obits |   Sports |   Business |   Opinion |   Things to Do |   Life |   Blogs |   Photos |   Video |   Data |   Jobs |   Homes |   Autos |   Buy/Sell


Ga. school chief endorses armed school guards

  • Follow Metro

ATLANTA — A top aide to Georgia’s public schools chief says his boss supports the National Rifle Association’s proposal for armed guards in every American school.

But Matt Cardoza told the Atlanta-Journal Constitution that state Superintendent John Barge believes the state would have to help local school districts with the cost.

The newspaper calculated that the cost could be at least $47 million annually.

The NRA’s top lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre, made the proposal Friday and urged Congress to spend whatever it takes. It was the powerful gun lobby’s first extended public statements since a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school.

Barge’s embrace of LaPierre’s position puts him at odds with many education leaders and groups that criticized the proposal.

Comments (17) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Riverman1
79682
Points
Riverman1 12/22/12 - 02:03 pm
5
0
Absolutely

It makes perfect sense and I've yet to see a reason why it's not already the case in our state.

harley_52
22211
Points
harley_52 12/22/12 - 02:15 pm
4
0
There Are Many Ways...

....to handle the cost of having schools protected by armed guards. Paying a full time guard (or two) is just one way. Using local police, using teachers already on the payroll, or using volunteers from the community at large are other ways.

I do not think this needs to be a federal, or even a state sponsored/managed program. There is no "one size fits all" solution that best accommodates each individual school.

Armed guards in schools is the ONLY sane, rational, likely successful strategy for protecting helpless students. They should already be armed and it is inexcusable that they aren't.

burninater
8939
Points
burninater 12/22/12 - 02:18 pm
3
7
The armed guard at Columbine

The armed guard at Columbine was remarkably effective. Good thinking!

Now that schools will be safe, we have to address law enforcement gun fatalities. I think we should put a good guy with a gun with all of our police officers. The reason why police officers get shot and killed in the line of duty is because a good guy with a gun wasn't there to protect them.

harley_52
22211
Points
harley_52 12/22/12 - 02:45 pm
3
0
There Are, Of Course...

....numerous alternatives to having armed guards to protect helpless students. Lefties with anti-gun agendas promote them because they are incapable of admitting guns can be used for good purposes. Unfortunately for the millions of potential victims, these alternatives are impractical, illegal, illogical, lack specificity, or otherwise will not be available in the foreseeable future.

Some crazy people do crazy things. These people don't wear T-shirts to aid in their identification. Some mentally ill people wouldn't harm a fly. Sorting them out and keeping weapons out of the hands of the dangerous ones is no small task. We can't do it and laws don't allow it so it cannot be viewed as a solution. That's why lefties like it.

Violent movies, TV programs, comic books and the like have been with us for decades. Most people are not persuaded to mass murder by viewing them. MAYBE a few are. Nobody can identify which will be so persuaded. Pretending we CAN identify them and/or that we will stop all violent programming is pure folly. That's why lefties pursue it as a solution.

We use armed guards to protect banks, airports, sporting events, large gatherings of people for special events like New Years celebrations, gated residential communities, and just about every other instance where we want to keep thugs away from the general populace. For some reason, liberals have convinced us NOT to protect schools and, worse, to advertise they aren't protected by bragging about "gun free zones."

How's all that working out for us?

Jake
31693
Points
Jake 12/22/12 - 07:43 pm
0
7
1 billion

It is estimated that in my state the cost would be $1 billion which is not going to fly. Already there is overwhelming non-support for this proposal. What else would you expect the NRA to propose but this nonsense?

Little Lamb
43986
Points
Little Lamb 12/22/12 - 09:41 pm
2
1
Jake is Correct

You cannot put a new layer of paid armed guards in every school in the nation. There are not enough qualified persons willing to do the work at the proposed low pay grade; and there is not enough money to pay them even if there were enough qualified people.

Instead, let existing school personnel (principals, assistant principals, teachers, admin. assistants, lunchroom workers, bus drivers, and custodial personnel who volunteer, who pass a background check, who pass a proficiency test, and who pass a psychology profile be allowed access to approved weapons during a threat.

That's a much more modest approach with a manageable cost.

specsta
6108
Points
specsta 12/22/12 - 10:37 pm
2
4
The Sky Is Falling! ...Again

And exactly what are teaching the children? To put their trust in a Glock and a 9mm metal jacket? That the way to resolve a problem is with a bullet?

Typical knee-jerk reaction. Children die in car accidents every day, and parents still drive like fools. Children are killed in home accidents every day, and parents still leave out weapons, meds, and have unsafe home environments. Children die from bacterial and viral infections every day, yet parents still do not teach and practice proper hand-washing and cleaning. Children die every day in this country and UNICEF estimates that 29,000 children die every day worldwide, most from preventable causes.

Twenty children die at the hands of a lunatic, and suddenly, pistol-packing armed guards, armed teachers, and a weapons cache at school to enable the ability to engage in a gunfight on school grounds, seems like a good idea to some people.

Has everyone lost their mind?

If you really want to protect kids from actual threats that could harm them, buckle them up, keep harmful things out of their reach, and feed them healthy foods. The number one cause of death for children in the US, according to the CDC, is unintentional injury. Children have a much better chance of dying in a car crash, poisoning, slips and falls, and from diseases like diabetes - rather than the miniscule chance they will die in a hail of bullets at school.

oldredneckman96
4940
Points
oldredneckman96 12/22/12 - 11:08 pm
2
0
Protecting or schools
Unpublished

There is no reason our teachers should not be allowed to defend themselfs. There is no reason our movie goers can not be safe. No reason people visiting a shoping mall to see their State Rep. can not be secure. One man at Columbine could not protect the school. Why have we allowed the enemies of our Country to overthrow our rights?

seenitB4
81877
Points
seenitB4 12/23/12 - 06:09 am
2
0
We use them everywhere.....

Harley said this...& I agree
We use armed guards to protect banks, airports, sporting events, large gatherings of people for special events like New Years celebrations, gated residential communities, and just about every other instance where we want to keep thugs away from the general populace

And we are worried about the cost of protecting our kids....GEEZ....some places like airports you will even get a patdown for free.....
We will have more shooters.....logical minds can't prevent this.....only a weapon..
Retired policemen & servicemen would be ideal protectors..

OpenCurtain
10049
Points
OpenCurtain 12/23/12 - 09:46 am
1
0
2 weeks go we were told by

2 weeks go we were told by the RCBOE there were no plans to update security.

They now have the opportunity to invest in the safety of our children, which clearly will be supported.

While the Socialist and Liberals are screaming BANNING, American just purchased 500k more Assault weapons and several million rounds of Ammo. It was plain stupid to make the announcement the way it was made by the President. If he wanted to pander to his voters and set Mr. Joe for a run in 2016 it could have been better handled. and done in a way not to panic the 71% (last poll) that do not trust Government plans concerning NEW GUN LAWS and BANS.

However, Thank GOD.
Some people are looking beyond the politics and seeking ways to address Access Security.

If I may again suggest looking at the Jail Visitor information and access point in the front lobby of the Charles Webster Jail Facility. It is a great example of simple secured / controlled access design to a building and affords the person who is the initial point of contact complete safety and visitor access control.

OpenCurtain
10049
Points
OpenCurtain 12/23/12 - 09:46 am
2
0
Want to fund School physical security?

Simple,

Add $10 to my BOE Tax Bill to pay for the added PHYSICAL SECURITY MEASURES.

However, this is provided the funds are REQUIRED BY LAW GO TO SCHOOL PHYSICAL SECURITY ONLY. Each school gets the same level of Physical Security. The Tax ends once the schools are retro fitted or in 10 years and cannot be extended without a voter approved vote.

Because there are greedy people.
All work must be:
*performed by AUGUSTA-RC historically (2+ years) based businesses,
*75% use of Augusta skilled and unskilled labor,
*must meet or exceed RFP specifications approved by State.
*must be awarded to the best solution at pre-estimated affordable price,
*be performed on a FIX BID per school district contract
*the submitted price justified in detail,
*The contractor project must be bonded,
Solutions reviewed and the best 3 selected by an independent Physical Security Expert for review by the BOE.
*bid it out per School District,
*no contractor or involved person or group can win more than 1 school district.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 12/23/12 - 09:26 am
1
3
You mean we should have

You mean we should have "jackbooted Government thugs" guarding our kids? Do we really want to follow the advice of someone who's nothing more than a lobbyist for the gun industry, and is so far out there he caused former President George Bush to resign his NRA membership? Remember, when you're arming your "jack booted thug" to watch over your children, be sure to arm him with a weapon from one of our sponsors.

OpenCurtain
10049
Points
OpenCurtain 12/23/12 - 10:05 am
2
0
TECHFan - A Jackbooted Guard

1st Re-read SeenItBe4's comment

Now mine,
The last time I saw or read about a Jack Booted Guard involved a Socialist.

As long as local Police or Armed Security are used they are held to answer to a locally elected populous not a national political group.

BTW: To be Jack Booted would be National Socialist (Nazi). Many believe that is were Washington seems to be headed.

Def: A person who uses bullying tactics, especially to force compliance. The spirit of sustaining and motivating a highly aggressive, or totalitarian regime or system. A system that rewards loyal followers over the general population of voters.

harley_52
22211
Points
harley_52 12/23/12 - 10:25 am
1
1
"It is estimated that in my state....

....the cost would be $1 billion which is not going to fly. Already there is overwhelming non-support for this proposal. What else would you expect the NRA to propose but this nonsense?"

Estimated by whom? What parameters fed the analysis?

"Already overwhelming non-support" from whom? Who did the study? Was polling done, or is it just a gut feeling?

As for the comment about the NRA proposing "nonsense"......I'll have to consider the source. If I were you I would run from a comparison between the NRA and the California voter as to which supports more "nonsense."

Personally, I'd be embarrassed to admit my state could afford virtually unlimited financial support for illegal aliens, snail darters, and fruit flies, but not a nickel for the safety of school children.

HenryWalker3rd
2393
Points
HenryWalker3rd 12/23/12 - 10:39 am
0
1
Bad guy with a gun + good guy
Unpublished

Bad guy with a gun + good guy with a gun = solution???

There is something brewing.....seems that every winter solstice, there is a /are MAJOR depressive death(s).....maybe it's just me.

myfather15
50180
Points
myfather15 12/23/12 - 12:17 pm
0
0
This is really long, but might be worth a read....Common sense?

The other issue being debated on this topic is gun control. This is also a Constitutional Rights debate and the only topic we can discuss is whether the government can limit those rights, even more.

After Wayne Lapierre made his statement the other day, he was attacked viciously by the left. Mr. Lapierre stated we need at least one armed police officer in EVERY school in America. Now, I disagree with this simply because ONE wouldn't do it. One officer would probably just be the first victim, if that officer didn't know the shooter was coming, which is impossible unless you can read minds. Then the shooter would be free to continue his rampage. It would take several to properly protect the schools and this would be extremely expensive for a Country already 16 trillion in debt.

Now, many leftist are saying having an armed police officer in schools would result in an O.K. Coral type shootout, occurring in our schools. They say this is NOT what we need and would only endanger more children. Would endanger more children in schools, really? Is there anyone who uses common sense, who believes this rhetoric? Well, let’s take that comparison and look at it a little more in depth. Keep in mind while we are thinking about this, we are discussing an ACTIVE SHOOTER, not a hostage situation!!

Their comparison is ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst. Having ZERO armed police officers in the school would be like the O.K. Coral having occurred but with Wyatt Earp, his brothers and Doc Holliday having NO GUNS. It would have been a ONE SIDED massacre, period!! I know, people without logic would say if Earp and his side wouldn’t have had firearms, the shootout might not have happened in the first place. That’s assuming a lot, seeing as bad people have always existed and those children in Sandy Hook didn’t have firearms.

Police train completely different for ACTIVE SHOOTERS than they do for hostage situations. So keep in mind, we are NOT talking about a hostage situation, we are talking about an ACTIVE SHOOTER already in the school. So, you’ve already got the O.K. Coral shootout, with bullets flying all over the place, striking innocent victims. The only difference is, we who believe in armed citizens, would like for some of those bullets to be traveling towards the lunatic shooting at children. If the left has their way, the children and teachers will continue to be the only ones hiding from bullets. So, you already have the SHOOTOUT the left wants to avoid, but it’s just a one sided massacre. So, would you rather have a shootout at the O.K. Coral or a one sided massacre with a crazed shooter methodically shooting innocent children and unarmed, unprotected adults? Seems the answer would be simple. The crazed shooters pick defenseless targets such as schools, movie theatres, malls, etc. The shooters don’t want to confront ARMED and trained law enforcement or private citizens. So yes, I believe if we had 3 armed law enforcement officers in each school, it would absolutely PREVENT most shootings at schools. The shooter would probably just choose a different, easier and more defenseless target. But, I’m not sure this is practical because of expense.

Also, for example; let’s say we already have an ACTIVE SHOOTER, inside a school assassinating children and teachers. Let’s say this lunatic decides NOT to shoot himself as the police arrive. The police storm in and there you have it, the shootout at the O.K. Coral. The only difference is, that before this O.K. Coral shootout, the lunatic got to shoot numerous unarmed victims, THEN has a shootout with police. So the shootout is going to happen regardless, the only question is WHEN and if it happens before he can methodically shoot innocent victims. Does this make sense to anyone?

Now, in closing; I realize the leftist would say “If we don’t have guns in Citizens hands, we don’t have to worry about any of this.” I would agree with you, but your dream of living without firearms is IMPOSSIBLE!! It can’t happen when there are approximately 300 million guns in the USA. It would be like the environmentalists saying we need to get rid of all vehicles because we are going to destroy the world. IT WON’T HAPPEN. Until we understand that FIREARMS were invented and we will have to live with them the rest of our existence, we are living in a dream world. We must accept this and work towards something that is actually obtainable. Living in a world where private citizens AREN’T armed, isn’t just unrealistic, it’s impossible.

myfather15
50180
Points
myfather15 12/23/12 - 12:55 pm
0
0
@specsta

For once, I would agree with your post but can't completely agree. Yes, I believe all this is an emotional "Knee Jerk" reaction to 20 children and 6 adults being slaughtered at a school. What human being wouldn't want to find a way to stop this atrocity?

My problem with your post is where you stated "Twenty children die at the hands of a lunatic, and suddenly, pistol-packing armed guards, armed teachers, and a weapons cache at school to enable the ability to engage in a gunfight on school grounds, seems like a good idea to some people."

I would counter your post with the question; 20 Children die in a school shooting and now the press and politicians want to remove firearms from law abiding citizens?? Doesn't that sound like a knee-jerk, emotional decision from our leaders and press?

And about your statement about engaging in a gun fight in schools; You might want to read my post above. Yes, I realize it's very long but it sure negates your opinion of a "gunfight on school grounds".

When will people understand that if you have an ACTIVE SHOOTER in a school, the gun fight is already there!! Bullets are flying already, people are getting shot!! It would be nice to think some of the bullets are traveling towards the crazed shooter!!

myfather15
50180
Points
myfather15 12/23/12 - 12:54 pm
0
0
I realize I'm going on and on

I realize I'm going on and on but people drive me insane with the ridiculous "logic" they use.

Lets go one step further; Lets say you professionally train teachers and principals in the use of firearms. You buy a very expensive lock box (so the children can't get in it) to keep the firearm in. The teachers and principal that are trained are the only ones with a key. These are the teachers of our children, they sould be responsible enough to properly secure aand maintain a key. Those teachers at Sandy Hook shielded their students with their bodies, don't you think they would have been brave enough to confront him offensively? Teachers are very brave and love those children very much. I'm quite sure they would defend them as if they were their own. But you don't take a knife to a gun fight, I'm sorry but its true. You don't think the teacher that died shielding those kids would have used a gun on the shooter if she had one? Well, I believe she would have, fast and with no remorse.

An active shooter comes into the school. The teacher is this classroom hears a Pop, Pop, Pop and many more coming from somewhere in the school. She or He tells the children to hide in the back corner. Then retrieves the firearm and goes to confront the shooter. I actually heard someone on the news say this would do nothinig but place people behind the shooter in jeopardy.

So, the teacher is going to fire their weapon at the shooter and has been professional trained at doing so. Yes, it is quite possible that anyone behind the crazed shooter or directly around the crazed shooter could possibly be accidentally shot by the teacher. So, they could be in danger right? Listen to WHAT WAS JUST SAID!!! The people behind and around the shooter are already in stinking danger!!

You would assume since this is an ACTIVE SHOOTER, assasinating innocent men, women and children that people would be FLEEING the general vicinity of the shooter. Maybe this is just my crazy logic but I believe they would be running away from him. I don't think they would be just standing around him, waiting on their turn to take a bullet (Thank you sir may I have another).

Again, if they are standing BEHIND or in the general vicinity of the crazed shooter, their lives are ALREADY IN DANGER. So, which do you think would be better? The shooter methodically assasinating them, or the teacher shooting at him, and POSSIBLY missing, thereby injuring or killing an innocent person. REMEMBER this guy is already shooting people, before the teachers brings their gun into the "shootout". I think I would take my chances with a professionaly trained teacher, at least trying to do the right thing, and I have 7 and 5 year old daughters.

Again, you can live your little fairy tale dream of a world without guns all you want, but the reality is they are here and here FOREVER!!

harley_52
22211
Points
harley_52 12/23/12 - 01:32 pm
0
0
Very Interesting Discussion...

...myfather15. You have presented the case fairly.

It's almost pointless to argue. The facts are indisputable (by fair minded people), but, unfortunately, they aren't being disputed by fair minded people. It's liberals who have an agenda that's more important to them than the safety of their own children.

Crazy, violent people who want to gain notoriety by killing innocent children can get their hands on guns (or other weapons) and can use those weapons on helpless children in schools where nobody is capable of stopping an armed assailant. That is a FACT. There is but one logical, practical, timely solution to that dilemma. Armed guards. Whether those guards are cops, ex-military, civilian, paid, or unpaid might be matters for discussion, but armed guards is the answer.

Agenda, or no agenda, that's where we'll end up. And whether we punish law abiding citizens by trampling on their Constitutional rights is mainly a question of how far politicians are willing to go in order to appease those whose agenda includes trampling on the rights of others in a futile attempt to achieve a "gun free" society.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Property tax jump OK'd

Augusta commissioners broke a seven-year trend Wednesday and agreed 7-0 to raise property taxes by 1.75 mills to cover a deficit and provide employees a small bonus.
Search Augusta jobs