Mom2mom poll: Should schools have armed guards?

[kckady]

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, some people -- including the head of the National Rifle Association -- have advocated putting armed guards in all schools nationwide. Is this a good idea? What do you think?

Share your thoughts by answering the weekly poll question. Post your comments and read The Star's FYI section on Tuesday, Jan. 1 to see what other moms say. Also check back often on mom2momkc.com to see how the mom2mom panel answered.
The question: Should schools have armed guards?
A. Yes
B. No

[mighty]

Some schools already have armed security guards. Some have SROs (School Resource Officers) onsite sometimes; they're police officers who teach the DARE program in elementary school, for example. They're the liasons between the schools and the police dept. at the middle and high school levels.

This question would be answered better by the schools themselves and the police officers. That's why I don't feel qualified to answer it.

[mygr8crew]

Most of the schools in our district have an officer on duty. I have a hard time believing that one officer could stop someone from hurting people as in the instance of Sandy Hook or some of the past shootings because one person can't be everywhere at one time. I do not know the answer, and I believe there isn't one pat answer, that it will take a lot of conversation, brainstorming and action to keep our children safe.

[mamalackey]

My daughters went to high school for a couple years in a suburban Chicago school. There was gang presence there and a fight broke out every day. It was not unusual for the girls to see a student walked out the door in hand cuffs to an awaiting patrol car. There, obviously, was a need for police presence on campus and they were there. It did not, however, dissuade the gang members being there as well.

Bad guys will be in schools regardless of whether or not there is an armed security officer.

[ithaca2kc]

No. This is not for the government to mandate. At Columbine there was an armed guard - and two shooters.
Requiring schools to fund armed guards and thereby taking money away that could be used for education is not what our struggling schools need.
We need to get rid automatic and semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of civilians. Guns designed with nothing else in mind other than harming the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time do not belong anywhere else but in the hands of our military or police.
We need to improve our mental health system, so that families of these troubled souls are given real options for their long term care.
We need to not shake our heads at yet another preventable tragedy and then just collectively move on after a suitable period of mourning. We need to stand up and say "no more."

[sahmiam43]

This is a multi-issue situation that we have allowed to continue for too long. There is no realistic one-change solution that is going to stop this, and I don't think that the NRA is going to like the combination of changes that need to be made to create one. Too bad.

I don't know the exact answer, but what we have been doing isn't working. We might have to swing our collective pendulum to the other side before the middle can be reached- but I'm all for swinging it. Now. And, for the record, I'm NOT all for swinging it to the side that arms every teacher, and puts more guns in schools even in the hands of trained officers. I understand the logic behind the suggestion, I just think that logic is flawed and does not address the many issues involved.

And this:

We need to not shake our heads at yet another preventable tragedy and then just collectively move on after a suitable period of mourning. We need to stand up and say "no more."

[patrussell]

Absolutely YES!! Had the Priciple been trained and armed, she would still be alive and so would the seven other adults, plus the 20 little children, who lost their lives. The difference in terroistic nuts having guns and trained people in schools having them is; the teachers WILL BE TRAINED. The idiotic terroristic people and nuts are already getting them, now, so that makes the teachers and children in schools, very vulnerable, to them. The senators who vote against it, will lose my vote for themselves, when they run for office. If they're no smarter than the average bear, they sure don't need to be trying to run this country.

[fibromom]

I wish I had checked the sight and seen this question before reading the results in the paper. 100% one way was only 8 people. I mentioned the low number for results in another post.
So what percentage would it have changed if I had answered the other way.
Armed guards in school is misleading. Dale has had a student resource officer in middle school and high school. Not grade school. I always thought they were there to handle any kids that get out of line.
After Sandy Hook that takes on a different meaning. Armed gaurds in school to protect the kids from intruders. Not really going for it. For one thing it would probably take more than one student resource officer to keep a whole school safe from someone entering the school. So maybe in his grade school he might have had two guards, one close to each door. Then in middle school where now there is 700 students instead of 350 would the school need to have 4 gaurds. Then in high school, how many armed guards would it take to protect a school big enough to hold 1700 kids. Six, Eight. All hanging around on the tax payers dime. One guard in a school would NEVER be enough to make a difference. Also would I have wanted my son to go to grade school every day thinking that there is a armed guard at his school to protect him because a bad guy might decide one day to enter his school and start shooting, causing my son to go to school in fear believing that could happen. NO