As a Denver area parent myself, albeit in the Socialist People's Democratic Liberation Paradise of Boulder County, I am conflicted about this. On the one hand, the recognition that there are threats and threats need to be met with effective security rather than the cost-saving liberal shibboleth of a "gun-free zone" is positive. On the other hand, and no disrespect is meant to LEOs service, ability, or intent, we know for a fact that good marksmanship is not a regularly displayed attribute of most law enforcement officers, let alone the retired LEOs that will train with the Douglas County deputies occasionally. So my concern is increased collaterals among students as a result increased firepower.
As a taxpayer, I recognize that the cost-benefit isn't there to justify training and maintaining school security guards at SWAT levels. It's a tricky balance but on the whole, I have to believe that arming these chaps with rifles will likely increase their effectiveness (although the "locked in patrol cars" thing makes ZERO sense) in the event of a school shooting situation because I think accurate, aimed fire will be enhanced vs arming them with pistols only.
I am equally conflicted about their choice of a rifle in .223. I would have thought a 9mm s/a carbine would offer the best set of compromises for the intended role. Any other thoughts on this?
