Connecticut School Leaders: Don't Arm Educators in Wake of Newtown

School officials from across the state met in a symposium this week to discuss school safety issues arising from the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. One take away from the meeting was that they don't want guns in schools.

Amid increasing calls to arm educators in the wake of the Newtown shootings, school leaders who met earlier this week in Southington agreed that guns have no place in Connecticut's schools.

The gathering of the Connecticut School Security Symposium on Monday in Southington drew more than 800 educators. The event was closed to the public but a group of schools officials talked to reporters on Tuesday during a press conference in West Hartford, according to the website CT News Junkie.

Joseph Cirasuolo, executive director of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents, told the website that officials discussed a wide range of issues related to school security during the symposium, including how schools should safegaurd against tragedies like the Newtown shootings. Some of the issues covered, Cirasuolo said, included installing bulletproof glass in schools and improving buzzer entry systems.

He said there was no single or easy solution to the matter of school security, though the education officials dismissed the idea of arming teachers or other school officials, the website reports.

“One of the things that was recommended against very strongly was arming teachers and principals, because when it comes down to it you can make sure somebody knows how to use a firearm — shoot it — but you need to make sure the person that has the firearm knows how to use it in a school setting,” Cirasuolo told CT News Junkie.

Joel Mrosek January 10, 2013 at 10:26 PM
It appears Cirasuolo is refuting a proposal to arm all teachers. One that I haven't heard anyone propose, in this state. That would be as silly as allowing would be perpetrators to know with certainty that no guns are on school grounds. Just the belief that a gun or guns may be present could very well have the deterrent effect we need. Personally, I believe there a some teachers who have been formally trained in the use of a firearm that would enhance the security in a school. I am sure there are quite a few former military men and women who would accept this tremendous responsibility.
James Bond January 12, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Out of step with the majority of America again. Threat of gun pressence may be the deterrent we need.Well the death penalty deterrent doesn't work.neither will the gun one.
Joel Mrosek January 12, 2013 at 01:31 PM
James, I don't understand why you chose to reference the death penalty as a deterrent. It is not. A punishment, in order to be a deterrent must contain three elements. It must be swift, certain and severe. The death penalty, certainly in this state fails the first two tests. And as far as being out of step with the majority of Americans, I will accept that. The vast majority of what we are hearing is simplistic arguments of "either/or" scenarios or blaming inanimate objects. Lastly, before you dismiss another's suggestion for correcting a problem, shouldn't you offer one of your own? (Our governor and president are famous for stating what won't work, but offer nothing towards a solution.)
James Bond January 12, 2013 at 01:47 PM
I reference the death penalty as a comparison to your argument that if guns are present and people know itand that will be a detrrent.People are aware of all sorts of rules and still break them.Like a recent study that shows texting while driving is even worst than driving drunk.As far as rejecting suggestions,I reject the idea that more guns will solve the problem and have done so consistantly so please stop saying that I'm not offering solutions. I've posted many times that clip and ammo restrictions should be inacted.So no matter how many times you bring the old tired people kill not guns argument I won't buy it. Try something new. I'm all in favor of change. The way its going now isn't working.
Joel Mrosek January 12, 2013 at 01:55 PM
Funny, you seem to prove the assertion that "gun free zones" are silly and don't work because criminals will violate them. (and I agree with you) So, your "solution" is in creating more laws that, as you say, criminals will ignore. That's your solution? If the presence of guns, or even the belief of the presense, is not a deterrent, why aren't police stations the scene of mass murders at the same rate as schools?
James Bond January 12, 2013 at 05:52 PM
Solution, more laws (yes) that limit clip capacities and type of ammo! (focus) I'm not taking away the right of hunters to hunt.Just the abilty to purchase massive amounts of ammo and huge clips that have nothing to do with the sport.Twist it whatever way you like,but I've made my point; end of story.Criminals will ignore,but lets at least make it harder for them to get it.If it were done long ago when they first came out there'd be even less out there for criminals to get illegally. Question; Why is this so hard to understand?
Joel Mrosek January 12, 2013 at 07:26 PM
Let me try again to understand your "solution". You want to make larger magazines illegal and ammunition more difficult to get? Ok, so, the effect of your solution would be to delay the acquisition of ammunition by a criminal and require a shooter to reload more frequently. By my estimation your "solution" would have allowed perhaps 20 or 22 people to be killed in Newtown. Personally, I believe a solution should have a greater degree of efficacy. Also, "clips" and "magazines" are not synonyms. Your incorrect use of the term 'clips' shows your ignorance of guns. Further, referencing hunters, and I assume the rights under the Second Amendment, demonstrates your ignorance of the Amendment. The Second Amendment has nothing to with hunting or why citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. You took exception to my assertion that gun free zones are counterproductive, but ignored my question as to why police stations are not the scene of mass murders at the same rate as schools. Your choice not to answer that, is an answer in and of itself. Your silence acknowledges the truth that the presence of guns reduces the likelihood of violence. And why do you need to use a psuedonym?
James Bond January 13, 2013 at 01:14 AM
yes make larger mags illegal and your estimation is just that an estimation not a fact. My ignorance of guns has nothing to do with the fact that larger magazines means more frequent shooting without reloading making the weapon more lethal. AND the 2nd Admendment was written for a different time period not 2013. WHY police stations are not attacked is that they have guns,(happy now),but ask the police if what you want is what they think is correct will be different.So your reduction of violence is just your opinion not the police's.Proof,ask a cop if they think we should be walking around with holsters like the 1860's The psuedonym is used for fun and dosen't mean anything sinister but to you. QUESTIONS answered? Now lets change things and see if they work or does change scare you that much?
Joel Mrosek January 13, 2013 at 03:30 AM
The reason the police favor the public being disarmed is simple. They would prefer to be the only ones with guns. And so would I, if I was a police officer. However, the vast majority of retired police officers also retain firearms. It is an intellectual incongruity that makes sense, upon reflection. Also, the Constitution was meant to be timeless. We will never know the founders true intent as to what they would have permitted under the definition of "arms" under the 2nd Amendment. Given that guns were by far the most lethal and devastating weapon at the time, absent a cannon, it can't be ruled out that some of today's prohibitions would not have been allowed back in those times. One thing is crystal clear, is that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to preserve hunting. When the Constitution was written a bow and arrow possessed greater 'firepower' than the muskets. (when accounting for accuracy and number of shots per minute). A musket, while slow and inaccurate, was far more lethal and devastating. A kind of assualt weapon of the day. And I agree we should change things, but not fall into the simplistic trap of banning inanimate objects. That has proven to be ineffective. The solution involves addressing mental health access, elminating venues that desensitize our youth to violence AND creating the belief that anyone who attempts mass carnage will immediately be resisted by lethal force. A multipronged approach is required.
James Bond January 13, 2013 at 08:41 PM
The framers of the Constitution never intended it to be timeless.Many of them talked about how it was a living document that would have to be modified from time to time. If its crystal clear it was not intended for hunting, than was intended for a militia,which we don't have anymore because of the military that we have today. Banning inanimate objects have not been proven to NOT work.The sentence you've written is your belief based on studies that you've linked to,to prove your point.That's fine but those links are onesided,thus bias by nature.I agree with your entire last paragraph except for the first two sentences.I believe this is the first time you and I have hit common ground..............soon we'll be bowling together,probably not though.
Joel Mrosek January 14, 2013 at 01:10 AM
Three things to correct in your last post, but I am sure you will refute them without evidence. 1. There is no evidence the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights wanted it to be a "living" document. This myth appeals to the same people that believe there exists a "separation of church and state". 2. Multiple Supreme Court decisions have affirmed the Constitutional basis for individuals to keep and bear arm, absent a militia. (and it has NOTHING to do with our current military) 3. Your last comment of using a double negative to refute my assertion that gun laws have not worked is the most amusing. Proof of the ineffectiveness of gun laws reveals itself with each mass shooting. To make the statement that gun laws have worked in the wake of the Newtown shootings is absurd. Did you forget that Columbine happened while the assault weapons BAN was in effect? That BAN didn't work, did it? Now, this time, if your refute my assertions cite evidence, not promote myths of the ill informed.
Ken Hagenow January 14, 2013 at 01:27 AM
" I'm not taking away the right of hunters to hunt" The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting...
Ken Hagenow January 14, 2013 at 01:42 AM
CT General Statutes Chapter 504 Section Sec 27 defines our Militia. We still have one, in fact we have four classes and if you are male between 18-45 you ARE Militia. By State Law.
Joel Mrosek January 14, 2013 at 01:48 AM
James, I just realized how quickly you dropped one incorrect assertion of yours in favor of another. You dropped the "hunting" rationale for the "militia" option. I sense you often have to change routes when confronted with facts. It is quite amusing.
Joel Mrosek January 14, 2013 at 12:16 PM
James, larger magazines are illegal in Washington DC. Well, you must be stunned and appalled that David Gregory will not be prosecuted for brandishing one on Face the Nation! Having laws that aren't enforced make it clear we aren't serious and they are feckless. More and stricted laws are for the feeble minded or those who are not willing to address the roots causes and viable, yet hard, solutions.
Jon Crickmore January 15, 2013 at 11:16 PM
I like Joel
James Bond January 16, 2013 at 06:09 PM
23 is my lucky number.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »