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.