Uvalde Police Chief Fired for Not Following His Own Plan
- Martin Dreyfuss
- Sep 1, 2022
- 3 min read

It took nearly 90 minutes for the Uvalde School Board to vote to fire ex-School Police Chief Pete Arredondo, nearly the same amount time hundreds of police officers stood in hallways listening to 19 children and 2 teachers be slaughtered.
The actions committed by the Uvalde Police Department has sparked outrage and protest across the country, and as investigations have continued, failures at all levels of the police force have become evident. Perhaps the most outrageous failure was the police chief failing to follow the school district's active shooter plan that he co-authored.
The outrage stems from the inaction of 376 officers, specifically: 149 border patrol agents, 91 state patrol agents, 25 Uvalde Local Police, 16 Sheriff Deputies, and Pete Arredondo's school police force. These numbers are only made worse by the 240 patrol agents and Arredondo's crew who are specifically trained to handle "mass attacks in public places."
Decidedly Arredondo will receive the front of the blame both legally and socially, and for those reasons Arredondo decided to no-show his hearing, instead releasing a 17-page statement.
In his statement, he called the hearing a "public lynching" going as far as declaring the decision "illegal and unconstitutional." This is heart-wrenching, as the ex-chief seems to be more concerned over his job status, than the cowardly actions enforced under his leadership.
The questions Uvalde raises are not new but are as significant as ever. Many point to countries like Australia, which banned guns in 1996 and since has only had 5 shootings with over 10 victims.
Others blame poor parenting, and poor public policy, but stand behind our right to bear arms.
The immediate question that should arise is, why is America the only country to experience significant mass- school-shootings?
Many other first-world countries authorize the purchase of firearms, yet as America has had 288 shootings since 2009, the rest have had a total of 5 school shootings. So what do other first world countries do differently than America?
The process to buy a firearm is more extenisve in most first-world countries.
Americans know it as a two-step process to buy a gun.
1. pass an online background check.
2. Buy a gun
Other countries that allow firearms, such as Japan, New Zealand, Canada, Russia, and Germany, all have a 6-7 step process.
This typically includes proof of residence at a shooting club or hunting ground, two references, a training course, background checks, and fingerprints. Some countries choose to do interviews, and psych evaluations, ask for proof of danger, and in Mexico require you to travel to Mexico City, where the only authorized gun store is located.
This due process of gun purchasing seems to be the largest difference between America and other countries. Therefore the logical first step in lowering school shooting would be our purchasing process.
Below is a proposed list to change America's firearm purchasing process:
Submit a federal online background check
Take a one-day gun safety and training course
submit 2 personal references, one outside of the household
Undergo 1-hour psychological evaluation
Submit bi-annual permit for a 30-day review
This process would be completed in one day at the gun-safety course, take 30 days to approve, and need to be renewed every other year. This process would not inhibit our gun rights, nor would it take an extensive amount of time to complete, however, would make an effort to lower mass gun violence in our country, without taking an extreme side of the argument.
Please leave your thoughts below, and thanks for reading, Martin Dreyfuss
.
Comments