Where does he say ADDITIONAL cops are needed? He said cops at schools, in any number, cannot prevent school shootings if diverted FROM schools.

With respect, all I can suggest is reading what the officer said rather than what one WISHES he had said. Frankly, I do not see how you can read a cop at Columbine saying armed cops AT (not NEAR) the school would have prevented the shootings to mean just the opposite.


No, but I have always considered sending cops to schools to prevent truancy and smoking an appalling waste of public servants and tax money. A handful of students sneaking off campus to smoke face little risk of being shot by someone who goes TO campus to shoot large collections of students. Granted, we are not dealing with rational minds here, but I cannot imagine anyone going through the woods behind a school hoping to find large numbers of people to shoot when they are guaranteed such numbers WITHIN the school.


It is presumptuous to think a cop trained to prevent mass shootings and stationed at a school for that purpose would expect a mass shooting? Does fulfilling their job description surprise anyone else? If heavily armed gunmen are confronted with someone trained and armed to stop them, I will bet on the guy with the training and expectation rather than the nutter who just stopped by the gunshop on his way there.

Then again, I cannot recall any mass shootings anywhere trained and armed cops were present; they seem to prefer defenseless victims. The closest thing I can recall to a mass shooting where people were trained and armed was the Ft. Hood shooting, but since guns were (inexplicably) prohibited at the military base none of the training did any of the unarmed soldiers any good. The first trained and armed people on the scene PROMPTLY stopped the shooter, but before they arrived he had already killed 13 people and wounded more than 20 others.