search
top

Senator Boxer Proposes Using National Guard

For school security. I think the Senator means this to be a lesson on why gun control would be a better option. But it probably would be a hell of a lot more effective than new gun control laws. Me thinks this might not have the rhetorical effect the Senator desires.

21 Responses to “Senator Boxer Proposes Using National Guard”

  1. I don’t think it is cost effective, nor are camo clad soldiers conducive to a calm learning environment (unlike administrators in khakis with ties with retention holsters, or responsible adults with concealed weapons), but assuming there is no gun control poison pill, sure, it’d be more effective than anything else being proposed.

  2. Asdf says:

    Since federal law already mandates ADA compliance, why not propose new building codes designed for active shooter defense? Maybe state and local government could start building mini police stations INSIDE of schools, so that every school has a dozen or more cops permanently stationed in schools? They could still respond to calls in the neighborhood, but home base would be a school building instead of a separate facility across town. They would of course be broken Into smaller groups for better coverage. Sure, response times on the street would be a bit slower, but active shooter response times would be almost Instantaneous – and that’s a fair trade off considering that protection of kids is more important than anything else.

    • Sebastian says:

      ADA compliance is mandated partly through Interstate Commerce Powers, and partly through Congress’ 14th Amendment powers. It doesn’t have a general power over building codes.

      • asdf says:

        Yes, and Interstate Commerce Powers can mean just about ANYTHING these days.

      • Geodkyt says:

        More importantly, almost ALL of local school direction provided by teh federal government is done via grants. “If you want the money, you have to do ‘X’“.

        No problem rolling something like this into the grants for special eductaion, Head Start, cafeteria funding, etc., that pretty much EVERY school system participates in.

        I think it’s a bad idea to devote a mini police station in every school.

        For one — department size. In my county we have 6 seperated school campuses (three elementary, 1 middle, one high school, and the admin offices that also house Head Start, pre-K, and some special education students not placeable in mainstream settings). Right now, having one school resource officer at each location (right now we just have one each at MS and HS) would be HALF the available patrol officers in the county. Having two or more officers at each school would mean effectively NO deputies available for the rest of a 180 square mile county.

        For two — police substations are NOT condusive to a calm scholastic environment. You frequently find very upset people in police substations, or have cops running out on a priority call. Really, almost as bad for a learning environment as having ACU dressed, M4 toting national guardsmen standing sentry every day. (Also, does the senator realize the Guardsmen, A., have jobs, and B, don’t work for free? Stationing guards in EVERY school, EVERY day in America would honestly be more than the Guard could handle on a long term basis, if you want them to have any duties other than guarding public schools.)

        In contrast, allowing staff who are interested to carry (on body) CCW, or where office staff had a locked gun safe available to them would provide NO distraction to students.

  3. MikeJ says:

    Why not authorize them to be able to volunteer to guard a school? No hourly pay, but would be able to use uniform, firearm, and vehicle. Of the 1/2 million guard members, I’m sure some wouldn’t mind doing it. It would be sort of like the old sign.. “This property is guarded by a shotgun 3 nights a week. Guess which three.”

    • Remember, most national guard personnel (most MILITARY personnel) have awful handgun training. M9 training and qualification in the Army and Air Force is a ~4-6 hr process with ~100 rounds.

      I would not trust guardsman to be deployed with their uniforms and issue weapons without adult supervision (NCOs/officers). As long as the teams of volunteers are required to have an O-1 or an E-5 and above on each team, sure, let ’em volunteer. If unsupervised, I would be fine with them rolling in a private capacity without uniforms and with personal weapons just like any other citizen. But give a 19 year old with minimal training a uniform and a gun and authoritay with no supervision and tell to “go get ’em!” and that can be a bad idea.

  4. jbiros says:

    This is not a military problem. If School Districts want to use uniformed police or security fine….The Military is used when you need to kill and break things to win wars.

    I would much rather have armed teachers and administrators than a military presence in schools.

  5. Sebastian says:

    I should note that I don’t think it’s a good proposal either. I’d prefer to see cops or armed and trained citizens instead of military as well. But it would be more effective than banning assault weapons.

  6. jbiros says:

    All the solutions to this tragedy remind me of how fast Dept of Homeland Security was created and the Patriot act was signed.

    No one knew how our liberties would be affected.

    I don’t believe we need an AWB I feel gun owners are the most responsible people in the Country

    I think this persons anger and mental health was a known problem and tragically nothing was done about it.

    • Harold says:

      Obama’s “solution” of forming a commission is the exact opposite of that, it’s what you do with thorny issues that you don’t really want to address.

      Since you cite the Patriot Act, note that much/most/almost all of it was from previous proposed bills, that one way they could pass it so quickly. If Obama wanted to reinstate the old Clinton AW ban, well, it was well established, just submit it without the sunset clause. And I’m sure DiFi has a bill already written, McCarthy, etc.

  7. Andy says:

    A Guardsman doesn’t have to be in full battle rattle on post at a school. And could add positive influences on the kids through interactions.

    Or, do both at the high school level: arm the JROTC instructors.

  8. Trevbo says:

    In California, the guards would be targets of the teachers, admin and students who already ran them off campuses years ago.

  9. Ian Argent says:

    As I noted when I saw this, it’s a lot cheaper to just give teachers a class in firearms retention and have them pass the police qualifier and just let them carry.

  10. Mikej says:

    If CCW holders could be in schools, how many parents and grandparents would be willing to take a day a week to be at the school? A grandpa onsite with a CCW is faster than the fastest Swat team from a mile away.

  11. Henry says:

    Putting military personnel in schools is a stupid idea. Just train and license some of the school personnel (volunteers) to carry concealed and allow people with valid CWP’s on campus. It’s simple: No more “gun free zone”, no more problems.

  12. Sig says:

    Are you kidding? As insanely risk-averse as the Army officer corps is, there is no way that anyone is going to support arming enlisted soldiers in a school. It practically takes an act of Congress to get us on a firing range with weapons and ammunition at the same time for our annual qualification (or twice annual for combat arms). We aren’t allowed to carry on post; military bases are probably the biggest “gun free zones” there are in this country. Many posts don’t allow soldiers to keep weapons in their own residences, but compel them to check them in unit arms rooms. I don’t see anyone seriously going for this; just the idea is making field grade officers all over the country break out in hives.

  13. Richard says:

    What possible good would sending unarmed soldiers into a school do to protect the children?

    Oh wait, she wants the soldiers armed?

    Doesn’t that kind of admit that gun-free zones don’t work?

  14. dustydog says:

    Abolishing mandatory education past 8th grade, abolish the Department of Education, and force all states to offer vouchers for private school. Make emancipation at 16 as easy as getting birth control or an abortion.

    1 – high school is a waste for kids that don’t want to be there. Making high school optional but still free, would stop school schootings. A dose of working full time would give them perspective. Half of college now is teaching what should have been learned in high school.

    2 – the Department of Education has failed us. It failed the 20 kids at Sandy Hook. It’s a waste of money we don’t have, and dissolving it would be infinitely better for the public than a gun ban.

    3 – for kids in families so screwed up that they decide to shoot up their school, 18 is too far away. Give those screwed up kids a better calendar date – age 16. I don’t particularly care what mess they make of their lives. If home is so bad that a 14 year old wants to leave home and leave school at age 16, the government should not enslave them.

top