, Gloucester, MA


April 11, 2013

Letter: Gloucester and must place guards in schools

To the editor:

In the wake of the March 27 School Committee hearing on school security, Superintendent Safier has talked about a “plan” with the idea implied that he is one step ahead on the planning process.

He will lock the doors now, and institute a “resource officer” at the high school, but with nothing for O’Maley or the four elementary schools.

My question to him: If the resource officer moves around the buildings and campus grounds and is not at the front door all the time, is that officer not at a disadvantage if someone burst in and began shooting? Will not some get hurt while the lone “resource officer” in the city tries to get on top of things while waiting for backup?

Front door security is what the issue is, it is the only pro-active method to stop anything. Anything less is RE-active, too late, and with possible losses.

The offer of a “resource officer” is nothing but a scrap from the liberal table. It addresses nothing and can only accomplish nothing.

In Mr. Garberg’s foggy screed (the Times, Friday, April 5), at least he is up front at the end and says he is a “gun control” guy. I appreciate a stand-up guy, even if he’s not on the side I’m on.

I have come to believe that those on the liberal left, though none would admit it, would quietly be pleased with another Newtown in hopes it would further their agenda. They are out there — about one third of the Newtown victim’s families are with Obama, about a third have spoken out on mental health, illegal weapons, and the foolishness of more “laws” solving anything, and about a third have been silent. He parades these families around in support of an old, old, agenda that has nothing to do with Newtown. That to me is evil to make political use of their profound grief.

Text Only | Photo Reprints