“We’ve made a collective decision as a town that we need armed security in each of our schools”

Posted by on Dec 23, 2012 at 6:08 pm

What kind of crazy, gun-nut red-state lunatics are these putting guns in schools? Oh wait, it’s New Jersey.

Don’t mess with Marlboro Township.

The leafy, well-heeled New Jersey suburb will station a permanent armed cop in each of its nine schools starting Jan. 2.

It’s apparently the first district nationwide bent on packing heat in every schoolhouse since madman Adam Lanza gunned down 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14.

“We’ve made a collective decision as a town that we need armed security in each of our schools,” Mayor Jonathan Hornik told The Post.

“With this new evil, you can’t just sit there and hope that it doesn’t happen in your town. We must protect our kids.”

The mayor and other town officials had approved the initiative before the chief of the National Rifle Association ignited a firestorm on Friday by calling for armed guards for schools.

Besides putting a cop in each of its schools — one kindergarten, five elementary, two middle and one high school — Marlboro will consider fortifying entrances with steel doors and bulletproof glass and installing surveillance cameras “all over” to feed to the police department, Hornik said.

Cost won’t stand in the way of “state-of-the-art” safety, he added.

“This isn’t a luxury item. This is a necessity, based on what we saw happen in Connecticut,” said Hornik, a Democrat who supports an assault-weapons ban and stricter gun control.

So even gun-control supporters want to do this, but it’s Wayne LaPierre who’s the crazy one for calling for  this the other day.

14 Responses to ““We’ve made a collective decision as a town that we need armed security in each of our schools””

  1. Jim on 23/23/12 at 8:15 pm

    Do you know what a Conservative is? A liberal that’s been mugged. It looks like Jersey has a Conservative lurking there.

  2. jason on 23/23/12 at 8:28 pm

    So say you’re a liberal that has been decrying the NRA’s suggestion to put an armed presence in schools. One of these schools with a cop on duty gets put into your district. You have a choice: send your child to the one with professional protection or send her to the one next door with the great big “UNARMED” painted on it.

    Where do you send your child?

    If you send her to the one without protection then congratulations, you’ve just knowingly endangered your kid to make a political point. If you send her to the better-protected one then you’re a hypocrite.

    The NRA’s suggestion makes sense. Liberals are just too far gone into their antagonistic anti-freedom worldview to admit it.

  3. David Pittelli on 23/23/12 at 8:35 pm

    I think the NRA suggestion is impractical. Not that I’m opposed to it philosophically, but towns everywhere are broke or close to it. Few will have paid all-day police in all their schools for more than a year. They will need to allow teachers, principals and other school employees, who qualify for a concealed carry permit, to possess a gun in school as they currently can almost everywhere.

  4. Dan on 23/23/12 at 8:47 pm

    @jason

    Dont be silly. A liberal community wouldnt give parents a choice of where to send their kids to school.

  5. tom swift on 23/23/12 at 8:51 pm

    This is a very expensive way to address an extremely rare problem.

    Let’s see, this town has 9 schools, each requiring at least one full-time cop. There are some 20,000 towns and cities in the US. If every town or city does this, we’re looking at something close to a quarter million full-time police deployed nation-wide to prevent something which almost never actually happens.

    Someone might suggest something somewhat more imaginative which would have the same practical effect without the financial strain. In fact I believe that some such suggestions have indeed been made.

  6. @PurpAv on 23/23/12 at 8:56 pm

    Someone might suggest something somewhat more imaginative which would have the same practical effect without the financial strain.

    Baby steps.

  7. Rich K on 23/23/12 at 10:29 pm

    Well, at least this idea CAUGHT EVERYONES attention. Going Federal is pretty stupid considering how well the TSA is working ,but as a local thing , financed on a voluntary basis by a special levy, I support it fully.

  8. Jack on 23/23/12 at 10:50 pm

    There are 100,000’s retired military personnel who would gladly volunteer, most with far more weapons training than your average PO, and many having combat experience.

    That took care of the cost, how hard was that.

  9. alpipkin on 23/23/12 at 11:18 pm

    I likewise don’t think the idea of putting a policeman at every school in America practical, nor wise. As Rich K intimated, if you like the TSA you’ll love the SSS (School Security Service). It would take three years before they could begin to build their one million square foot DC Headquarters, and then another two to decide what their logo would look like….

    Another umpteen million person Federal bureaucracy isn’t anything I’d care to ponder.

    The answer can be found in Utah, where school administration personal, teachers and other employees are given training and a CCW permit IF THEY WANT TO, then allowed to carry at school.

    Anyone read those horrific stories about all the killing that’s been going on in Utah schools because of those evil guns? Neither have I.

  10. Stephen Smith on 24/24/12 at 7:29 am

    As a teacher I’d refuse to teach in a school with armed guards and I’d refuse to send my kids to one.

    They’re safer without the guns.

  11. Dan on 24/24/12 at 8:35 am

    Stephen,

    “They’re safer without guns” – Where’s your evidence?

    I’d refuse to let you teach my children. I would like them to be able to form reasonable decisions based on factual evidence.

  12. lyle on 24/24/12 at 2:07 pm

    As a teacher I’d refuse to teach in a school with armed guards

    So you’re OK with all your little charges being targets. How noble of you.

    They’re safer without the guns.

    Yep, just like Sandy Hook. Real safe.

  13. rumcrook™ on 25/25/12 at 1:18 pm

    stephan is a perfect example of how liberal world views carry the same position for liberals as faith and religious ritual do for others.

    no logic are facts can turn them from the faith they have in libtard ideology.

    no matter how many times liberal ideolgy fails when tried in the real world it is of no matter or consequence. they have faith in its truthiness.

    just look at how often socialism has brought poverty and ruin to nations around the world yet liberals still want to inflict it in every country they gain control over.

  14. Deede on 27/27/12 at 8:02 pm

    I am with Stephen- I am also a teacher. And I believe you are the ones without fact on your side.

    There were armed security at Virginia Tech and at Columbine. Explain how they were a deterrent, please?

    1 armed guard cannot protect every entrance, every window that can be shot in, every moment on every playground. Are you planning to never have your child play outside again? If the guard is at the front door, who is guarding the back? Is every classroom, door, window, etc going to be covered with reinforced steel bars? Do you expect your children to be in a classroom with bars on the windows?

    Who is paying for the massive renovations to make schools into prisons? Adam Lanza shot through a glass door. Are you prepared to pay more in your taxes for the huge infrastructure project it would take to install “steel doors, bulletproof glass, and surveillance cameras? If you are making it so the windows no longer open, are you air conditioning every classroom?

    So now, you are thinking your children will go to school in a prison with guards at the doors, bars on the windows, no access to the outdoors… But wait- what about field trips? Will we be hiring gunmen to follow our children around the aquarium?

    Get real? You are all ridiculous.

    Arguing for armed guards in our schools is a waste of our time, money, and political clout. There are real things that have been proven in other countries to help deter gun crimes. But people like those on this thread are too selfish to actually do what needs to be done.

    Here is just one of the many articles, blogs, and news reports published recently with links to research documenting the fact that gun crime can be decreased by stricter regulations, background checks, and licensing laws. There is also evidence that we need to increase funding and access to mental health services for all individuals.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-strict-laws-work.html?_r=0

    Quit wasting our time with things that don’t work- please put your efforts behind things that actually might save my life and the lives of your children.