Jump to content

Gov. Christie Smacks Down the NRA

Recommended Posts

While all children are equally precious I am sure that Obama's kids are at a higher risk of being kidnapped or assassinated than mine.


I am sure the Secret Service is the best judge of this. I have never begrudged any President's immediate family's protection regardless if personally like him or his politics.


How many movies and TV shows are based on this?


As for "everyman" Christie--I think there is a method to his madness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Venividi - "SR540Beaver wrote: Beavah, the 23,800 schools that currently supply armed guards today do not do so with federal funds.


SR540, I'm not getting the point that you are trying to make. Those guards you mention do not work for free. It doesn't matter if they are paid for with federal funds, state funds, or local funds. It's still tax dollars (or borrowed dollars for which taxpayers which will need to be paid by taxpayers in the future)."


I don't think you are either. I went to Oklahoma City Schools and graduated in 1975. We had OKC policemen in our schools. Fast forward to 2013 and OKC schools still have OKC police in them. My son went to Moore Schools (OKC suburb) and graduated in 2011. The have Moore police in their schools. How are they paid? I'm not totally sure if they are on duty or off duty and being paid as security by the school system. Regardless, it is budgeted and paid by the city whether it be thru the police department or the school system. It is a cost that we locally have decided to accept and expend. Does that come from the local taxes we pay or federal funds RETURNED to us, I don't know. But it is our money to begin with regardless of whether it takes a trip thru the city or federal coffers. School security is a local option that almost a quarter of all public schools in the nation already exercise. Beavah's strawman argument is that I'm claiming that each student in America be provided the same level of security that the President's children are and that it is cost prohibitive and unneeded. He's wrong in his false assumptions. Part of my earlier point was that while our children may not be the target that the Presdient's children are, they are none the less potential targets as Sandy Hook proved. The shooter targeted specific classrooms. They may have been an illogical target of an insane person, but they were still targets. Our children go to malls, movie theaters, concerts, sporting events and visit mom and dad's office where there are armed guards. They are taught at a young age to seek these people out if lost or in danger. Having them in schools will not warp them or remove their innocence. Will it help? I don't know? But what I do know is it can't hurt and as the Presidnet is on record saying........if it saves the life of only one child, it is worth doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that come from the local taxes we pay or federal funds RETURNED to us, I don't know.


Well yeh should look it up. In your case, since your state is a net recipient of federal dollars, yeh are really asking da rest of us to fund these guards for your schools with our tax dollars that you're takin' from us.


If you're goin' to propose more than a four-fold increase in coverage, then yeh have to propose a more than four-fold increase in tax revenue to pay for it. And in the end, one fellow with a pistol is either likely to be out of place or just a victim of a guy in body armor who comes in by surprise with a semi-automatic rifle, eh? Schools are big and have multiple access points. So you'll need more than one guard per school.


That's a level far below what the President's children have, but yeh still haven't suggested any way of paying for it. Da cost is $10 billion per year for one guard in every school, not countin' training, equipage, and insurance. Call it $30 billion per year to have any reasonable deterrent presence, or $100 tax per firearm per year.


Propose the tax, I'll vote for it. If nuthin' else, that sort of Keynesian stimulus will help reduce da unemployment rate. ;) Odds are it will also reduce demand for guns by folks who really have no practical use for 'em, and therefore reduce da number of folks likely to leave guns around for their disturbed children to take to school.


But someone will still accuse yeh of treatin' da President's children as being more important than anyone else's, because they get multiple armed guards per child. ;)




Link to post
Share on other sites

I did read your post for content, SR540. I didn't see anywhere where yeh suggested how yeh were goin' to pay for all those armed guards. Not just schools, but apparently movie theaters and sports events and other places kids gather. What tax are yeh proposing to pay for armed security at four to ten times da current level? Or are yeh proposing tens of billions of dollars of borrow-and-spend?


Da fundamental problem with armed guards is that they are a very, very poor use of tax dollars compared with adding to da general police force. Da second problem for those who are concerned about liberty is that adding lots and lots of additional armed police to the state is quite a threat to freedom. Lots of historical states tend to find more and more ways of using those armed folks in more and more invasive ways.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah, then it must be a comprehension issue. On Friday, 1/18/2013 at 2:43:52 PM I suggested that, "The local school systems determine the level of security and how to pay for it." You are the one who thinks it will take a $10B federal program to train and equip guards. I'm sure it would if you take the usual inefficient federal bureaucracy approach. Local schools understand their needs and how to address them much better than someone sitting in Washington. In OKC, Oklahoma City Police are used, not some rent-a-cop.




"Resource Officers


The Oklahoma City Police Department provides school resource officers to each of the district's high schools within Oklahoma City limits.


Last school year, officers made 843 arrests or citations. Of those 780, were for truancy or misdemeanors such as disorderly conduct. The other 63 about 7.5 percent were felonies.


Oklahoma City police Capt. Bo Mathews said school resource officers are there to enforce the law; however, unless they witness a violation firsthand, their involvement is at the discretion of teachers and principals.


The teacher signs the ticket against the student, and files that complaint against that student, Mathews said.


The Putnam City School District has high schools in three municipalities, but the Putnam City Schools Campus Police provide resource officers to all high schools.


The criminalization of students, I don't agree with that terminology, said Chief Mark Stout, who has been with the campus police for 20 years. We are working within a micro-community, and students are there for eight hours, and they need to feel safe there.


Stout said they have a zero-tolerance policy on some issues such as weapons and drugs on campus, but in all other violations, officers are using their judgment. He said the mindset of being a campus officer is different from being on the streets."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, SR540, how are yeh goin' to pay for it?


Here's a recent article from your state, Tulsa area: http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleid=20130115_19_a1_cutlin92581


School funding cuts, as well as tax reductions, have left Oklahoma schools with no specific funds for security and less funding in general


There's no state budget for security. Every professional educator says they don't want school staff carrying. Da cost for Tulsa school district security is $3M per year, which comes nowhere near puttin' da number of security guards in place that you are askin' for. Tulsa has 83 schools, da current budget pays for only 43 guards, and quite a few of 'em are nighttime security or other support.


One fellow suggests a bond issue for actually payin' for additional security. In other words, a borrow-TAX-and-spend proposal. You'd need to increase taxes in your state substantially, or substantially cut teachers and education program, in order to pay for da security you suggest.


So how do yeh pay for it? Cut out all sports and music programs, along with high school electives and extracurriculars, and you'll only get part way there. Increase taxes? Do yeh think a tax on ammo is an appropriate way to pay for security against those usin' ammo, or do yeh think that da general public should subsidize / bail out da gun industry in this way?


And here's the thing. Having a bunch of LEOs around doin' nothin' but sitting waiting for the random gunman ain't goin' to happen. Instead, those officers are goin' to do law enforcement work. Schools for kids should be safe, comfortable places like your home. Would yeh welcome stationing a bored cop in your home, who had nuthin' really to do but find violations to cite you for? Lots of communities have laws against such wicked crimes as skateboarding, and there are plenty of school resource officers ticketing skateboarders and such. Is that really helpful? Should a fight between two friends really be a matter of arrests, or should it be a matter of school discipline? What do yeh do when your kids fight at home? There are real, genuine losses of freedom in having officers of a well-armed state hangin' around everywhere.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah: "Again, SR540, how are yeh goin' to pay for it?"


Really? I've answered it twice. I'm sorry you don't like the answer. Go back and read it until you understand it.


"The local school systems determine the level of security and how to pay for it."


For example:


"The Oklahoma City Police Department provides school resource officers to each of the district's high schools within Oklahoma City limits."


"The Putnam City School District has high schools in three municipalities, but the Putnam City Schools Campus Police provide resource officers to all high schools."


My son attended Moore Public Schools which is a suburban area of OKC just like Putnam City. They had Moore police officers in their schools. The needs and abilites of a rural school with 50 total students K thru 12 will be far different than the needs and abilities of a suburban high school with 500 in the graduating class alone. That is why a once size fits all $10B federal program isn't needed. It's why a Department of Education isn't needed either. Federal encroachment in local education is what is hurting education instead of the intended help it was supposed to provide. The return of tax dollars thru federal funding is largely dependent on test scores. Just as unit scouters bemoan the BSA being all about the dollars, teachers must teach to the test in order to obtain high enough standardized testing scores to receive their federal funding. Real education.....innovative education suffers because a certain level must be obtained on a standard test. And because kids are not learning any more than what is on the test, our educational standing deteriorates instead of improves. Can you imagine what a boondoggle a federal school guard program would be? It is a state/local issue. That is who decides what the securit needs to be and how to pay for it.


Since both OKC police and teachers are city employees and already being paid, the money is coming from one source and already being paid. It's a decent model for others to follow and I assume is probably fairly standard among the 23,800 schools with armed guards.


Another way to fund it is what OKC has been doing for quite sometime. MAPS. MAPS (Metropolitan Area Projects) is Oklahoma City's visionary capital improvement program for new and upgraded sports, recreation, entertainment, cultural and convention facilities. The projects began on December 14, 1993, when voters approved the MAPS sales tax, and were completed on August 17, 2004 with the dedication of the Ronald J. Norick Downtown Library.


MAPS was funded by a temporary one-cent sales tax approved by city voters in December 1993, and later extended an additional six months. The tax expired on July 1, 1999. During the 66 months it was in effect, over $309 million was collected. In addition, the deposited tax revenue earned about $54 million in interest. That's being used for MAPS construction, too.


The Mayor appointed a mandated 21-member citizen oversight board shortly after voters approved the projects. The board reviews project components including financing and site location and then makes recommendations to the City Council. The MAPS board led the public review process for the MAPS Master Plan which the Council approved on February 14, 1995. The board was dissolved on June 22, 2004.


Since the success of the original MAPS program, OKC voters have approved penny sales tax to fund other MAPS projects such as MAPS for Kids. The $700 million OCMAPS school program includes hundreds of construction, transportation and technology projects - all for the benefit of Oklahoma City's public school students.


Many of the largest construction projects are finished, while work continues at numerous schools throughout Oklahoma City. Over 70 new and renovated schools totaling $470 million in construction will be completed when the program draws to a close in 2012.


Program budgets for Oklahoma City Public Schools include $52 million for technology projects and $9 million for bus fleet replacement.


OCMAPS also provides funding to the 23 other public school districts that serve Oklahoma City resident students. By the conclusion of the program $153 million in city sales tax will have been expended for over 400 approved projects in the 23 suburban school districts.


The OCMAPS program was established on November 13, 2001, when Oklahoma City voters approved a new tax to fund public schools. The temporary


sales tax was collected for seven years with 70 percent disbursed to the Oklahoma City School District and 30 percent to the Suburban School Districts.


Voters also approved a $180 million bond issue to fund additional projects in Oklahoma City's District I-89.





THAT Beavah is how you pay for something. You do it locally. You present the vision and benefit to the local citizens and let them vote on whether or not to fund it. You don't have a benevolent federal government deciding to tax you more against your will to provide a one size fits all solution of something you don't need or want. If we decide our children are at risk and need protection just like the president's children, we'll fund it.


And that is just one way to do it.


You need to quit thinking inside the federal box.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So 540; there are around 400 public schools, according to a quick search, around Oklahoma City. If you put one guard in each school and pay them say $15,000 a year, that is six million dollars. Not sure you could hire "qualified" people for that, but say you could. So, you really think people would approve additional taxes for such a thing; especially since the price tag would likely be higher in reality, and you would accomplish little with only one in each school. It also does not take into account the costs for likely having to reorient school layouts and, as Beavah notes, liability insurance. All the stuff you noted in taxes and so on were things people likely "would" vote for, as they have real measurable results.


I think the real issue is what truly makes sense and is also affordable. It is like here in So Cal; we have no earthquake coverage for the condo association in which I live because the benefits do not meet costs. Rates are too high and deductible too much and structured to benefit the insurance company. So, we simply hope if one does happen, it will not knock us down, while individuals can get personal coverage through the state that will help with very basic losses only, but is there.


But, it is also fairly obvious that some simply are not particularly rational about these kinds of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But you guys!! your missing SR540's point.. The schools figure out how to pay for it! In other words, not his problem... Each school should just find that old money tree in the back of their school yard and pluck the $$$$$ off that old tree. No mess, no fuss with extra taxes is needed. Now don't bother him about such nonsense..

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter whether it's federal, state, or local, eh?


Someone has to pay, and pay a lot.


For each police officer with salary, benefits, pension obligations, training, and insurance coverage we're talkin' $75K a year in OKC, probably a bit more. Population of 600,000 so call it 100,000 homes. Eighty three schools, so to put two armed officers in each school is goin' to run you an added $125 in property tax per home per year, on average. That's probably an underestimate, because some of those schools are larger and would need more guards, so say about $200 for an average home. More for bigger homes, of course.


Is that what you're suggestin' to pay for this? Are yeh ready to increase da average fellow's property tax by $200 per year (and yours even more) to pay for these guards in schools?


Additionally, keep in mind that da schools with da most need for a police presence are invariably in more economically disadvantaged areas, with lower property values. In rural areas, yeh have fewer properties and also lower property values. So to really make this work, yeh have to propose a statewide tax of some sort, where da suburbs are helpin' fund da cities and da rural areas.


So perhaps a sales tax, eh? Just over 1,800 schools in your state, $150K each for two guards, $270,000,000 required. Average retail sales per month in Oklahoma of $375M when times are good, so yeh would need a statewide sales tax increase of 6% to pay for this.


Yeh ready to vote yourself a 6% state sales tax increase across da board to put those guards in schools?


Or yeh could do it with income tax, eh? Total Oklahoma personal income tax receipts came in at $2.8 billion in 2008. So that means it would require a 10% increase in income tax. Yah, yah, OK, revenues are probably up now, so we'll call it 8%.


Are yeh ready to propose an 8% increase in Oklahoma individual income tax to pay for these guards in schools?


That's what da costs are, eh? 6% sales tax hike, 8% personal income tax hike, or a big hike in property taxes. Which is it?


With regard to federal programs, what yeh may not be taking into account is that MANY OF THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS IN THE NATION ARE PAID BY FEDERAL DOLLARS through various programs. I expect that includes the Oklahoma City and Putnam school resource officers that you mention. Da police departments get money from da federal government under the Community-Oriented Policing, Drug-Free Schools, and other programs. Since OK is a net recipient of federal funds, da rest of us in the nation are subsidizin' yeh a bit on those officers. :p


Now, to my mind as a conservative, that's a stupid waste of money. Crime in schools is negligible; those officers are better off bein' on the street dealing with real crime that they are better trained to handle, and leave da school discipline to school folks. But when yeh get federal money yeh get weirdness and inefficiency, so a bunch of dollars are wasted puttin' cops in schools so that folks like you can believe it was some intelligent local decision, and can then propose even more borrow-tax-and-spend programs to waste more taxpayer money puttin' more cops in schools. :p Even though there's no evidence that cops in schools are likely to stop one of these shooters.


I think da other thing you're mixin' up is capital improvements in infrastructure with operating costs. Da MAPS program was a bond issue, eh? They borrowed money for capital improvements as a one-time expense, and paid for it with a millage over time. That makes da tax rate look small, because you're spreading payments over a long period.


Yeh can't do that with paying for police officers in schools. That's not a one-time capital expense, it's a yearly operating expense. Yeh can't pay operating costs with bond issues. It's illegal in almost all states because it's economically stupid. ;) Yeh have to pay for operating expenses with operating revenue, which means you need a tax, not a bond issue.


Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, having an armed professional (security "rent-a-gun", off or on duty police officer, etc.) will have an as yet indeterminate effect on safety. Can't have any research on that - it may be controversial.


Second, if implemented, how will it be paid for?


Third - I guess if you have armed guards from kindergarten on, it may not be of much psychological consequence. Having them in schools will not warp them or remove their innocence. But it reminds me when I entered the "real" workforce right after I graduated from college in the late 1970s. Britain (pre-Thatcher) was going through a very rough economic period and the defense firm where I work had hired a few Brit's who were well educated (engineers), knew the language (or a close facsimile of American English) and would work for a bit less than their American counterparts (not sure if H-1B visas were in existence yet). Anyway, being a defense firm, we had armed security in the building that occasionally walked the hallways. I thought nothing of it and thought of them sort of like a bunch of Barney Fifes. Well, one day one of the British engineers came to me and asked me how I could work is such and environment - one where I knew that an individual was actually roaming the hallways with a loaded gun! That was such a foreign concept to him that it did bother him immensely and he was flabbergasted that I didn't give it a second thought. Now, I'm not sure who had more of a irrational response.

Link to post
Share on other sites


I see the difference in why I was not getting your point. In my view, I don't make much of a distinction or care which governmental body is putting it's hand in my pocket to extract my hard earned money. I don't like it being taken and the government (whether federal, state, city, township, school, library, park district,...) deciding how best to use it, and then using it in a wasteful manner. (and yes, I do think that armed guards to purportedly protect against the possibility of another school shooting is wasteful - How are they going to protect against a shooter in a building across the street from shooting kids on the playground?) I want my tax dollars used efficiently, and for necessary services.


In any event, the additional cost to pay for the additional staff would come from taxpayers. Which is something that I would expect would be supported by state legislature in Illinois, a decidedly blue state that likes to increase the public payroll. It just surprises me that a red state like Oklahoma would want to incerase taxes to support armed guards in schools.


As an aside, the police officers in your schools - are they there as guards against potential outside intruders, or are they there as community service officers? Not to say that they cant do both, - do you truely believe that the current level of staffing would prevent a shooting in or around the schools?(This message has been edited by venividi)

Link to post
Share on other sites


All these tax proposals smack of Tax and Spend Democratic policies. Republicans would simply cut taxes, pretend economic growth would magically appear to cover the costs of increased spending. Until that magic appears, simply run a deficit to be paid later.







Link to post
Share on other sites

Venividi - Red states love using your taxes for military and anything weapon related.. Blue states may love taxes to pay for programs.. But, I doubt they would be for this one, as most Democrats would push for the the programs to make it hard for scary people to get the weapons.. So your taxes would be used for more weapon sales checking, perhaps gun safty courses etc...


My newly blue state house is now looking to repeal the "stand your ground" law.. I knew we had the law, but I didn't know some of the extra stupidity in it until I read about the appeal.. I don't know if it is in all states with this law, but with ours, we did sort of make a person spraying bullets because he-or-she "felt threaten" protected by something similar to the "Good Sameritan" law.. Any innocent bystander killed or maimed because they happened to be in the vacinity as the idiot sprayed bullets could not sue, for loved ones who died, or if they ended up paralized or something.. Also it was "OK" to brandish a gun.. Let me tell you if my son or spouse where killed, because someone freaked out and pulled a gun on someone else, and they were simply in a the wrong place at the wrong time. I would definately want to sue (if they got any money). I also want to see them to go to prison for it.


The castle law of only shoot if you can't flee (and better be a good shot and only hit the bad guy).. Is good enough..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...