Here's a politically workable solution that I think might work... if there is enough support
We amend Washington law (I'm suggesting this for my state, but feel free to copy it if you like it
) to allow for what I will call a "school security volunteer peace officer"
the SSVPO will be volunteers, either classified staff or parents, CJ students, or other members of the community who are willing to spend one day a week volunteering at an elementary school or junior high (this way the LEA's School Resource Officer can be focused on high schools) and will be subject to a background investigation.
the SSVPO will receive 40 hours of training with half of that beeing marksmanship... They will have limited on-duty powers of arrest and be licensed to carry a firearm on school grounds during their volunteer day. They, by my hypothetical law, will be there only to make arrests or use deadly force to stop FELONIES on school property, not as a truancy enforcer or to help carry out school policy.
They will be plainclothes, carrying their issue weapon (I think the S&W Shield .40 would be a good choice for that) and handcuffs and ID under a jacket. they will spend their volunteer day doing stuff other volunteers normally do, but will be ready to act if violence occurs on skrool property
now some will say "we should just be able to carry our guns in school property like everywhere else" Hey, I don't disagree with that, but it's unlikely to happen in the current political climate... I think my idea could be sold to the public easier. and would be much cheaper then contracting with Allied Barton for armed guards or having police officers in school all the time....
That's quite the pipe dream you've worked up there.
Let's be honest with ourself: such a ridiculous plan will never come about. The antis will have no problem turning "armed volunteers" into "school vigilantes" or some such.
Frankly, although this would in actual fact be more liberal than some kind of creepy "volunteer" system, I think it would be an easier sell to simply
allow certain teachers and administrators to be armed. Throw in some kind of perfunctory qualification to appease the worry-worts and you might have a playable strategy.
When I was a kid, I remember my small, public elementary school had a gym teacher who was a vietnam veteran (and more, but decades later I've forgotten the rest. Suffice it to say his combat experience was extensive) – this was not the kind of guy you would want to mess with. This teacher was universally regarded in the community as a tough SOB, most parents liked having at least one guy like that around. At the same time, he was a really good teacher of elementary school P.E., and the kids liked him and vice-versa.
Accepting that Brady Bunch diehards will never see reason, I have a hard time imagining most normal parents
not feeling safer with a guy like my P.E. teacher having the means to defend his kids. Now, compare that to the prospect of some (as the media might portray it) right-wing militia-type "vigilante" "volunteer" hanging around school a few times a week, armed and doing who knows what most of the time. (Frankly, the idea kind of creeps
me out. What kind of people, exactly, would seek out such a gig?)
I understand where the idea comes from, but it's a rather naïve attempt at dealing with the problem of the public accepting an armed (non-law enforcement) presence in schools. You have to realize, it's all perception. The
actual tolerance to guns created by a new approach has no correlation to how it's
perceived. Remember, we're talking about a public which
perceives a simple prohibition ("you shall
not bring guns to school!") as somehow able to prevent anyone, ever, who desires to bring a gun to a school from doing so (especially someone with such disregard for law as to plan to commit murder).
It's all how you frame it, and word it. And yes, it's ironic that the more gun-tolerant position may be the easier sell, but such is life. And anyway, why aim for such a measly "solution"? What good is one part-time volunteer going to do? And what's the point of all those rules, anyway? It's not like, back in reality, licensure or the like has any
real function, purpose, or conceivable benefit (beyond filling the pockets of those enforcing the need for such a "license").
And, by the way, if you think I'm full of it, consider the following:
Third-grader Alexis Wasik said police and teachers barged into her classroom and told students to hide in the corner.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html
Apparently, our state-sponsored heroes were already on the scene when the shooting started, but they were too busy hiding from danger, and doing what the teachers would already be doing without any need for police "assistance", to actually try to
stop this guy at the first sound of a gunshot.
And this is what you think will solve the problem? Another state-sponsored hero? Whoopty-do. Thank god my kids will be safe now!
I tell you what: if I had to trust my kid's life to another person, I'd pick someone like my former P.E. teacher, who actually cared about the kids, and dedicated his work to teaching them, over some state-vetted, part-time "volunteer" with a worthless license and an inflated, security-guard-like sense of importance, any day. Especially if they're both armed.
