You are imagining things.Originally Posted by PawDawg
I cannot say whether schools need more SROs or not. The schools and school districts will have to make that call for themselves. Some schools probably are adequately covered by one. Some may already have more than one. Do we make our communities safer by diverting more than 1 LEO to each school? Probably depends on the community. Some communities might be safer to have that LEO on general patrol. Parkland has an SRO and he didn’t do anything to help. The SRO that shot the Maryland shooter was also on SWAT. Maybe it is not “more” SROs that are needed, but maybe the LEOs that are assigned to the schools need to be more like the SWAT guy than the good-for-nothing guy that was assigned to Parkland.
I didn’t say having a group rush the gunman is a better idea than police/SROs with guns. I think it could be better than arming teachers who are not nearly as well trained as LEOs and who introduce many other gun safety risks by bringing guns into schools, essentially bypassing the “shield” that lock-down procedures, surveillance and metal detectors (some schools) are intended to provide.
And “rushing a shooter” was an example not intended to prove that there is something better than guns at stopping guns, but was meant to contradict what you said - which is that only a gun will stop a gun. That is plainly false.
|
|
Reply With Quote
