I'm responding to
Sheriff York's talk to the superintendents about putting armed officers (SRO's)
in the schools. He says, "It's not about guns for me. It's about
protecting our kids." He's dismissive of state Democrats for not providing
funding for this. On the goal of limiting access to guns, "That's just a
political statement that the politicians use to get elected." So, Governor
Cuomo and the Assembly don't care about protecting kids, just getting
re-elected. Mr. York says it's safety, not politics though.
The article
mistakenly states the Maryland shooter was killed by an SRO. In any case, the
shooter was armed with a handgun. That state has laws similar to ours. The
sheriff might say SRO's worked. Alternatively, the situation may have been
different if the shooter had access to assault weapons. Most would agree, I
believe, there's an advantage to being armed with a rifle over a handgun.
That's even without throwing a bump stock on it.
There's a recent
Sheriff's Association release that requests, "Sufficient funding to
provide at least one armed SRO at every grade school and high school in the
state." There are over 6,700. At $30,000 just for salary, that's over $200
million per year. Add in regular training, weapon maintenance, uniforms and so
on. Possibly state Democrats see gun control as more cost effective. From
statements I've seen of Sheriffs York and Murphy they seem opposed to gun
control. Can someone ask if they have a problem with New York gun laws? It
seems to me that sensible regulation makes their jobs easier and relieves the
need for armed officers in our schools.
Options to keep guns out of schools - which is kind of odd since that's not what they're doing.
Kevin, did you leave fb?
ReplyDeleteYes. Sorry to leave without saying goodbye. I got pretty annoyed seeing all the nasty memes about the usual suspects:liberals, Muslims, NFL players and on and on. Then when the CA thing hit I felt like that was enough of a reason to pull the plug. My own small protest.
Delete