Sunday, December 23, 2012

School Security vs Half Hearted Measures

I feel sorry for those who have written to inform me that I should have understanding for Adam Lanza and those of his ilk. I feel sorry for all of you who have written saying that I should be more understanding for those in America who hate us enough to kill our children.

I'm not sorry for hating Adam Lanza who killed those children in Newtown Connecticut, but he's not alone.

I absolutely hate James Eagan Holmes who walked into that movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, with evil in mind. They are the same person.

They have no known criminal record prior to the shootings. They watch a lot of violent movies and play a lot of violent video games, and they both have absolutely no regard or respect for the lives of others.

They are no different than a radical Muslim terrorist like Major Nidal Hasan in Fort Hood. They are no different than those who hijacked planes on 9-11. And yes, they are no different then others who vehemently hate so much that they want to destroy the innocent.

I hate people like Adma Lanza, Holmes and people like Nadal Hasan, who want to kill our children and attack the innocent.Yes I really do hate people who hurt or harm the innocent - especially children.

I fell the intensity of emotion, the same hateful conviction, but unlike Lanza and his ilk, I know that evil is evil.
And yes, most of us might hate people like Lanza vehemently. But what we hate is evil, and would not do harm to good people.

So Are Guns The Enemy?

Most of us know that we should recognize the enemy for who they are.

The enemy is not the citizen who follows the rules and leads a good and honorable life. The enemy is not the man or woman who drives a car and takes their kids to school, or those who goes to church and pray. The enemy is not those who have guns to protect their families. The enemy is not a knife or a car, or any other useful piece of equipment that we also use for a multitude of well intentioned reasons.

The enemy is the selfish, the self-absorbed, the one who hates for no reason, the one who wants the innocent harmed, the one who wants to curtail our liberties, and yes - the enemy may also be the one who shifts the focus away from the true problem and over to something that fits their personal or political agenda.

Yes, while I hate Adam Lanza for killing those children, I also hate those who refuse to face the real problem, to recognize the real issue of securing our children. I hate those who will wash their hands of responsibility when Americans get hurt or killed because of their inaction.

And no, that is not my way of talking about not sending in my fellow Marines into Benghazi Libya to save those you were later killed - even though Marines were only an hour away and could have been there to do what Marines do best. Kick ass and protect others.

But then thinking about it, there is one huge similarity between what happened in Benghazi Libya and Newtown. You see, I can't help but wonder if our embassies around the world have beefed up their security since the murders that took place in Benghazi? Something that has not been done at our schools around the country.

I worked in Security for years and saw clients try to cut corners to appease insurance companies and bosses who wanted the issue looked at. I know how it is to have a problem with security, and watch people do nothing about it. And yes I've seen people who want to do the minimum to achieve the maximum protection.

People have a tendency to want the easy quick fix even to a complicated problem. And yes, just as what took place in Benghazi Libya which was a wake up call for more security at other embassies, the school shooting in Newtown Connecticut should be a wake up call.

It should be a call to get people off their ass and really do something about possible violent acts against school kids.

Do we need to move all of our children to abandoned prisons where tall fences topped with concertina wire and guard towers surround the facility? Can we protect our children, once "we get them in"? Do we want our children to go to school behind prison walls, or be made to feel like "protected prisoners"?

Should we now stress the construction of vehicle and personnel "sally ports" for visitors who come to a school?  For those who don't know what a "sally port" is, allow me to explain.

A "sally port" is a secure, controlled entryway, as that which you would enter in fortification or a prison. A guard in a protected location, today usually physically remote from the actual sally port, will have control over the middle space between the two doors. One door closes before the other will open.

The operation of the doors of the sally port, and the movement of all persons, materials and/or vehicles through the sally port, is what provides security.

This sally port guard will have the means to check the personnel, or their escorts, and/or the credentials of all those persons, materials and vehicles to be passed into the protected space through the first opened door, prior to its opening. He will then monitor the sally transit to ensure that procedures are followed before entrance can be obtained.

Sally ports are used to restrict the flow of people to one at a time so that intruders cannot pass into the classified or secure area on a cleared person's coattails.
If we assume that a fortification is needed, then can we depend on that fortification to work without security professionals to secure it? No, we can't.

Building fenced in facilities with concertina wire, guard towers, sensors, and sally ports for both vehicle and personnel entry, at all of our schools is pretty unrealistic.

So What Can We Do?

Well, how about hiring trained armed professionals to have on site in case of emergencies? What is wrong with having a "policeman or woman" on site? Why can't school districts pony up the money and pay for either armed security professionals or on site police officers from their local Police Department?

And no, I'm not talking about some under-trained armed security guard like the ones who stood by and watched as a person was assaulted in Seattle.

If you remember, in February of 2010, five security cameras underneath downtown Seattle picked up the graphic beating of a 15 year old teenage girl in Seattle's Metro bus tunnel while uniformed Seattle Metro security guards simply looked on and did nothing to help.

No, I'm talking about on site members of the local Police Department or armed security "professionals." I'm talking about having trained personnel on site who know how to use deadly force to stop an armed intruder like Adam Lanza.

National Rifle Association, vice president Wayne LaPierre has called for armed guards in schools, saying that plan is the fastest way to prevent another massacre like the massacre this month at a Connecticut elementary school.

“That’s the one thing we can do immediately that can make our children more safe,” he said on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” We’ve got to get at the real cause.”

LaPierre, the gun rights advocacy group’s chief executive officer, made his original call for armed officers in every school a week after killer Adam Lanza mercilessly murdered 26 people, include 20 first-graders, inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut.

Adam Lanza,supposedly had an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and two handguns that he had taken from his mother, Nancy Lanza, who was the legal owner of the guns and Lanza's first victim.

We know for certain that the two handguns were found in the school building. But yes, there seems to be some confusion about whether or not Lanza had the AR-15 in the school. But why?

First reports from the authorities there said that upon a search of Lanza's car - that that is where they found the AR-15 rifle. But since then, there have been all sorts of claims about the whether he had the rifle or not.

Since the talk about increasing School Security has been shifted away from the prime issue of ensuring the security of our children, and instead is now being focused on Gun Control measures, I can't help but wonder what Democrats will do if they get another ban and another school shooting takes place?

Address The Problem!

Why not look at the problem for what it really is, our schools need better security. And yes, why not tackle the problem of securing our schools right now?

Democrats and some Republican politicians are openly considering new gun-control regulations, yet we need more security.

Friends, that's the same as promising a man a empty cup when he needs a drink of water. It does nothing to solve the problem right now and in the near future.

Wayne LaPierre says limiting Second Amendment rights is not the answer. And yes, I agree.

He said that the answer to gun violence in schools is an armed security force that can protect students, made up of trained volunteers stationed at every school across the country.

"It's not just our duty to protect [our children], it's our right to protect them," LaPierre said at a news conference.

"The NRA knows there are millions of qualified active and reserved police, active and reserve military, security professionals, rescue personnel, an extraordinary corps of qualified trained citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every single school."

“The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he told NBC News.
“If it’s crazy to call for armed guards in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy,” Mr LaPierre said Sunday.

And yes, I agree with Wayne LaPierre 100%!

We need to protect our children today - and not legislate the problem away with some sort of pipe dream that says that a supposed ban will stop violence from taking place upon our kids.

And No, Democrats Do Not Understand That Bans Only Work If Citizens Respect The Law.

Why can't they understand that criminals don't abide by the law or anything else?

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who apparently sees the Sandy Hook School Massacre as an opportunity to further her cause of banning all guns, has vowed to introduce legislation next month to reinstate a ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

Lawmakers have also proposed federal background checks for gun purchases, an attempt to keep weapons away from people with mental health problems.

But again, how exactly does that accomplish anything when a person like Lanza steals the guns from someone else - in this case his mother - to commit evil?

It doesn't do a damn thing to address the problem.

The Left's answer is more regulation and no action. Yes, all talk and no action.

Why is it that Democrats like Feinstein don't understand that action gives hope and builds confidence?

Democrats and Gun Control advocates slammed the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre for proposing a force of armed security guards at schools across the country as a response to the Connecticut school shooting.

One Democrat politician who was quick to criticize but is without even the slightest hint of doing something to actually help address the problem facing schools, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who actually said, "It is beyond belief that following the Newtown tragedy, the National Rifle Association's leaders want to fill our communities with guns and arm more Americans."

Did you read a solution in his quote? No, I didn't either.

How about Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who said  that armed guards are only part of a possible solution and called for the ban on high-capacity magazines.

“We have to go beyond that,” she said on ABC’s "This Week.” “We cannot have an armed guard in every classroom, in every doorway.”

"Every classroom" and "every doorway"?

Where the hell did that come from?

Someone should let Amy know that we're talking about one Cop to one School - for Christ's sake, even the Chinese government did that very thing after a nutcase over there attacked 22 elementary school kids with a knife on the same day that Adam Lanza did his horrid deed.

Arming Teachers!

Yes, without using volunteer security or hiring trained security professionals to man a facility, we should instead arm and train school administrators and teachers.

And before you write me and tell me something to the effect of "What the Hell am I thinking?"

Please take this into consideration. As times change, so too does job requirements.

For example, about 35 years ago I looked into becoming a U.S. Park Ranger at Yosemite National Park. I was a little surprised at the time that the NPS (National Park Service) was looking for armed law enforcement rangers in the national park system.

It seemed just a few years before that that Rangers weren't armed. But the fact is, times changed.

So yes, maybe it is time that all of America's schools do what is done in other countries. Arm our teachers.

Now granted, that would mean drug testing and background checks. So yes, I know that many of today's teachers might have a problem getting a permit to carry a gun because they probably can't pass either.

But then again, I really believe that almost all of our teachers out there can and would if they knew that it is for the security of the children under their care and responsibility.

Banning Guns Is Not The Answer!

The answer is better security.

Since we somehow found a way to make it feasible to hire school psychologist, nutritionist, and a host of other Staff Support positions, why can't our schools cut some fat and add Security?.

Maybe some of those high paid positions at various school districts, school administrators, and high paid teachers would take a cut in pay so that schools can afford better security? Then again, maybe not.

But for those out there who think banning guns, even if there were a way to ban all guns, would be the answer - ask yourself if that really would make our society more secure?

OK, I just have to throw this in.

When I was in the private security field after leaving the Marine Corps, I had a boss who used to say, "If a law banning guns works so well, then pass a law to ban all guns - and then go ask the President of the United States if he'd like to give up his Secret Service security because there is now a ban on guns?"

Fat chance that he would. Fact is that even if there were a ban on all guns, every single one of them, America's criminal element would still do drive by shooting -  and yes, nut cases like Adam Lanza would still steal someone else's guns to do their evil.

So if we pass another gun ban, will the President feel safe enough to give up his security? You can bet he would not.

And also, think about this, why is it that the NRA's Wayne LaPierre is criticized and mocked for suggesting that we give a little bit of the security that is afforded to our politicians in Washington everyday?

And ask yourself this, is the President more important than a small child in Newtown Connecticut, or anywhere else in America?

When a couple of prevention choices of either putting trained security or arming our teachers in the schools isn't seen as worth the price of a child, we have bigger problems than guns.

Remember, there are a number of people who can replace the President in his position in the Executive Branch of our government at any given moment - yet we provide him with enormous security measures.

But really, who replaces little 6 year old Emily if she is killed because we only put out half hearted measures that didn't stop a crazy with a gun or a knife from getting into a school - or once he was inside we were helpless to fight back and did nothing?


Story by Tom Correa

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comment.