On January 16th, Obama released a slew of executive orders supposed to "fight gun violence." Most of these orders are either tepid measures begging bureaucrats to actually do their job, or pledges to provide more guidelines to said chairwarmers. A few represent more paperwork and hassle for legitimate gun buyers (background checks, mental health checks). One calls for predictably condescending, belittling propaganda targeting gun owners, called “national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.”
One order, however, stands out. It promises to give $150 million of taxpayers' money to school districts and law enforcement agencies so that they can hire "1000 new school resource officers, school psychologists, social workers, and counselors."
School psychologists, social workers, and counselors are just more of the nonteaching staff that inflates the US cost of education while doing nothing to raise the country's pitiful international ranking in standardized tests. However, the first category, "school resource officers," should catch the reader's attention. This, ladies and gents, is a euphemism for "armed guard." (Ominous thunder roll.)
If politicians surround themselves with Secret Service agents, it's presumed to be safer, and not just because they enjoy the sight of burly guys with dark suits, sunglasses, and a penchant for South American whores.
In case there is any doubt, Obama's press release helpfully explains that the term designates specially trained cops posted in schools — in short, armed guards in schools. This was a measure proposed by many, including the NRA, after the December Newtown school shooting. The general ideais only common sense. After all, if politicians surround themselves with Secret Service agents, it's presumed to be safer, and not just because they enjoy the sight of burly guys with dark suits, sunglasses, and a penchant for South American whores.
California and Ohio, to cite only two examples, already allow schools to employ armed guards, a measure that finds favor among the public. A December 18 Gallup poll shows that 87% of respondents think increased police presence in schools would be "somewhat" or "very" effective to deter shootings, while 64% support the idea of having one or more school officials in every school carry a gun. To support this notion, Larry Sand, a retired teacher and president of the California Teachers Empowerment Network, cites a couple of shootings which could have been much worse if not for an armed "good guy":
In 1997, at Pearl High School in Mississippi, 16-year-old Luke Woodham shot nine students and staff, killing two, before Joel Myrick, the school's assistant principal, confronted and subdued him with a pistol he retrieved from his truck. In 2001, senior Jason Hoffman opened fire on the attendance office of Granite Hills High School in El Cajon, California. Hoffman wounded five people before being shot and incapacitated by an armed school cop. (Source: City Journal)
We can add the aborted attempt of a San Antonio man who started shooting near a movie theater, then ran inside, where he continued to shoot. He was himself shot and wounded by an armed woman, a security guard who cornered him in the restrooms and took his gun. No one was killed.
In all these cases, police arrived and did their job, but for precious minutes, the armed "good guy" on location was the only help.
Naturally, it is absurd to start a new federal program to pay for these things. Schools can do it themselves, if they want to. But armed guards in school are a logical measure backed by cases proving its worth. It is thus unsurprising that Democrats howled and screamed at the proposition, calling the NRA "crazy" and frothing with outrage. Not that the NRA was the only outfit backing the idea, mind you, but the NRA is the target that the Alinskyites are currently trying to freeze and isolate. Connecticut Representative Chris Murphy went so far as calling the proposition "revolting" and "tone deaf" in a tweet.
That's a pretty hefty accusation. You see, Rep. Murphy is credited with helping the creation of the independent Office of Congressional Ethics, and claims to support "independent, non-partisan ethics." If such a paragon of ethical virtue calls an idea revolting, it must be quite loathsome, right?
Alas! As we have seen, Obama has now quietly endorsed the notion, even putting our money where his mouth is. So, Mr. Murphy, bad news for you: you have just called the Dear Leader revolting and tone deaf. But the Lightworker will forgive you. After all, you were just slavishly parroting the slogans of the day. Ethically and independently, of course.
