Who are we kidding on school security?
So it's going to cost $6.4 million to put an additional 45 security officers in the rest of our schools. Do the math, that's about $140,000 for each officer, including all costs. Wow, where do I sign up for that gig? And if a private firm can do it for half that amount, maybe it should be running all our school security — we wouldn’t have to worry about training or benefits then. Then, of course, we have the "We don't have the money, woe is us, blah blah blah." Come on. Leadership can find the money if it really tries, and if it can't, send me the budgets. I can do it. Who are we kidding? It won't be pretty, and some won't like the cuts I'll make, but I'll find the money, and I'll do the work for free.
(READ: Volusia struggles with putting officers in schools)
That said, I understand it's a legislative mandate, but it's a "feel good" thing so we can say we're doing something about school safety. The resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School did nothing to immediately stop the shooter, for whatever reason and you can bet if such a situation were to occur in one of our schools, the resource officer will be in another part of the building, or on a bathroom break, or doing something, somewhere, that will later be the "excuse." It's not because the officer isn't doing the job, it's just not possible for him or her to be everywhere, all the time.
To really to protect schools, set them up like airports and courthouses. Make our schools true "gun free" zones instead of protecting students with a sign that says "No Weapons."
Steve Burdette, Daytona Beach
Not so safe
In a May 2 letter, “More than dribble,” a self-admitted delusional left-winger has finally answered a question that has long plagued me: Why do left-wingers believe more gun control will make us safer when history proves otherwise?
The “March for Our Lives” rally calling for stronger gun laws was held in Washington, D.C. Ironically, D.C. has a history of extremely repressive gun laws. In 1977, it became illegal for law-abiding private citizens to have functional firearms in D.C., for any reason. This law, passed in the name of safety, ensured criminals would not encounter any legally armed victims. That year, the homicide rate was 27.8 per 100,000 residents. By 1991, that rate was 80.6. Robbery and rape also increased. Obviously, leaving good people defenseless does not deter evil people. Criminals, like tyrants, prefer defenseless victims.
Genocides are nothing new and they continue today. History is littered with the corpses of millions of victims. The common denominator is it is always perpetrated against defenseless victims. German law disarmed the Jews, making it much easier and safer for Nazis to mass murder 6 million defenseless Jews.
Left-wingers say it can’t happen here. And they are right — as long as we have guns to defend ourselves. If we allow ourselves to be disarmed, our safety will depend on the tender mercies of the criminals that roam among us and those who hold the reins of power. Those who demand to have this final layer of protection stripped away in the name of safety are truly delusional.
Daniel Price, Port Orange