Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We can spend billions of dollars turning our schools into walled fortresses and we will not solve the problem. The people that attack the innocents can strike anywhere, in preschools, after school day care, shopping malls, playgrounds, sporting events.You can take approach #1, I am the most pro-2nd Amendment person on this board.
No, guns are not enough to keep a predator off the school grounds. There needs to be non-climbable fencing that can be electrically activated. Ground sensors on the perimeter, cameras, turnstiles, xray for anything entering, clearance procedures with background checks, guards that ride in with the students on buses-spend the day at school & escort them back home again. Shared safe rooms between two classrooms with communications. Bullet proof windows, steel doors with electronic locks, electronic gates to isolate a predator from running free.
When we do this then it pulls the anti gunners teeth out of the argument, but most importantly, the children will be safe and we will have our 2nd Amendment rights restored.
People that commit these crimes are sick, truly wacko. This shooter announced he was there to kill the kids. If we're to do anything to protect our kids as well as the public in general, we have to get professional help to these people before they lash out at innocent children and we have to make it more difficult for them to acquire weapons designed for mass killing.
I agree with you 100% but I will say this;
Having armed guards in schools is simply a good idea; a "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" is how I heard it put one time.
If someone shows up at a school to shoot people, what do you do? Call the cops; you call good guys with guns and hope they bring a lot of their friends. Therefore, it seems bizarre to me that some--not saying you but some--think having a "good guy" with a gun on site is a bad idea.
I worked in a school system some years ago. We had school resource officers, police officers with special training. There was one assigned full time to each high school and most of the middle schools. I've wondered just how effective these people would actually be in a school attack. This type of school violence is so rare, I doubt they would be prepared for it. They spent most of their time away from schools, dealing with with security issues, juvenile delinquency, truancy, drugs, court appearances, and public relations. In the city I live in now, response time to school violence is only a few minutes. However, schools in rural areas have much slower response times from law enforcement.We can spend billions of dollars turning our schools into walled fortresses and we will not solve the problem. The people that attack the innocents can strike anywhere, in preschools, after school day care, shopping malls, playgrounds, sporting events.You can take approach #1, I am the most pro-2nd Amendment person on this board.
No, guns are not enough to keep a predator off the school grounds. There needs to be non-climbable fencing that can be electrically activated. Ground sensors on the perimeter, cameras, turnstiles, xray for anything entering, clearance procedures with background checks, guards that ride in with the students on buses-spend the day at school & escort them back home again. Shared safe rooms between two classrooms with communications. Bullet proof windows, steel doors with electronic locks, electronic gates to isolate a predator from running free.
When we do this then it pulls the anti gunners teeth out of the argument, but most importantly, the children will be safe and we will have our 2nd Amendment rights restored.
People that commit these crimes are sick, truly wacko. This shooter announced he was there to kill the kids. If we're to do anything to protect our kids as well as the public in general, we have to get professional help to these people before they lash out at innocent children and we have to make it more difficult for them to acquire weapons designed for mass killing.
I agree with you 100% but I will say this;
Having armed guards in schools is simply a good idea; a "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" is how I heard it put one time.
If someone shows up at a school to shoot people, what do you do? Call the cops; you call good guys with guns and hope they bring a lot of their friends. Therefore, it seems bizarre to me that some--not saying you but some--think having a "good guy" with a gun on site is a bad idea.
We can spend billions of dollars turning our schools into walled fortresses and we will not solve the problem. The people that attack the innocents can strike anywhere, in preschools, after school day care, shopping malls, playgrounds, sporting events.
People that commit these crimes are sick, truly wacko. This shooter announced he was there to kill the kids. If we're to do anything to protect our kids as well as the public in general, we have to get professional help to these people before they lash out at innocent children and we have to make it more difficult for them to acquire weapons designed for mass killing.
I agree with you 100% but I will say this;
Having armed guards in schools is simply a good idea; a "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" is how I heard it put one time.
If someone shows up at a school to shoot people, what do you do? Call the cops; you call good guys with guns and hope they bring a lot of their friends. Therefore, it seems bizarre to me that some--not saying you but some--think having a "good guy" with a gun on site is a bad idea.
Given theses people always have hi capacity assault weapons, what do you give the security guard. Even the police will often be outgunned. It's idiotic to have such powerful weapons legal. They have never been needed for defense and they sure aren't for hunting. Only time they are being used is to kill innocents.
I worked in a school system some years ago. We had school resource officers, police officers with special training. There was one assigned full time to each high school and most of the middle schools. I've wondered just how effective these people would actually be in a school attack. This type of school violence is so rare, I doubt they would be prepared for it. They spent most of their time away from schools, dealing with with security issues, juvenile delinquency, truancy, drugs, court appearances, and public relations. In the city I live in now, response time to school violence is only a few minutes. However, schools in rural areas have much slower response times from law enforcement.We can spend billions of dollars turning our schools into walled fortresses and we will not solve the problem. The people that attack the innocents can strike anywhere, in preschools, after school day care, shopping malls, playgrounds, sporting events.
People that commit these crimes are sick, truly wacko. This shooter announced he was there to kill the kids. If we're to do anything to protect our kids as well as the public in general, we have to get professional help to these people before they lash out at innocent children and we have to make it more difficult for them to acquire weapons designed for mass killing.
I agree with you 100% but I will say this;
Having armed guards in schools is simply a good idea; a "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" is how I heard it put one time.
If someone shows up at a school to shoot people, what do you do? Call the cops; you call good guys with guns and hope they bring a lot of their friends. Therefore, it seems bizarre to me that some--not saying you but some--think having a "good guy" with a gun on site is a bad idea.
The one thing we can do to make schools safer at less cost than armed guards is better school lock-down programs, and better security measures in the schools. In most schools, exterior doors, corridor doors, and classroom doors can't be locked due to fire codes. Electronic locks could be use to seal off corridors and classrooms giving law enforcement the time they need to respond. Some schools still don't even have lock-down drills. We can do a lot to make our schools safer. It's just takes money.
That is a radically biased notion.Yanks don't give a shit. All they care about is their 'right' to walk around with dangerous weapons, and murder innocent schoolkids.
Yeah. Gun rights advocates stand and cheer every time a maniac blows away a child. That's what they're fighting for, more dead kids. Yup.
There is more anger over the thought of having your precious guns removed than about saving the lives of schoolkids.
I worked in a school system some years ago. We had school resource officers, police officers with special training. There was one assigned full time to each high school and most of the middle schools. I've wondered just how effective these people would actually be in a school attack. This type of school violence is so rare, I doubt they would be prepared for it. They spent most of their time away from schools, dealing with with security issues, juvenile delinquency, truancy, drugs, court appearances, and public relations. In the city I live in now, response time to school violence is only a few minutes. However, schools in rural areas have much slower response times from law enforcement.I agree with you 100% but I will say this;
Having armed guards in schools is simply a good idea; a "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" is how I heard it put one time.
If someone shows up at a school to shoot people, what do you do? Call the cops; you call good guys with guns and hope they bring a lot of their friends. Therefore, it seems bizarre to me that some--not saying you but some--think having a "good guy" with a gun on site is a bad idea.
The one thing we can do to make schools safer at less cost than armed guards is better school lock-down programs, and better security measures in the schools. In most schools, exterior doors, corridor doors, and classroom doors can't be locked due to fire codes. Electronic locks could be use to seal off corridors and classrooms giving law enforcement the time they need to respond. Some schools still don't even have lock-down drills. We can do a lot to make our schools safer. It's just takes money.
All of that is fine and I applaud any attempt to make kids safer through physical barriers. I don't support putting arms in the classrooms--it's a terrible idea.
The force you speak of may not have been effective in a response. However they did provide a deterrent; just like the rent-a-cops in nearly every mall in the nation, every Ross store, every Target, etc...
But again, if you're going to call cops to show up with arms to put down the attack, why not have them closer; on campus?
I worked in a school system some years ago. We had school resource officers, police officers with special training. There was one assigned full time to each high school and most of the middle schools. I've wondered just how effective these people would actually be in a school attack. This type of school violence is so rare, I doubt they would be prepared for it. They spent most of their time away from schools, dealing with with security issues, juvenile delinquency, truancy, drugs, court appearances, and public relations. In the city I live in now, response time to school violence is only a few minutes. However, schools in rural areas have much slower response times from law enforcement.
The one thing we can do to make schools safer at less cost than armed guards is better school lock-down programs, and better security measures in the schools. In most schools, exterior doors, corridor doors, and classroom doors can't be locked due to fire codes. Electronic locks could be use to seal off corridors and classrooms giving law enforcement the time they need to respond. Some schools still don't even have lock-down drills. We can do a lot to make our schools safer. It's just takes money.
All of that is fine and I applaud any attempt to make kids safer through physical barriers. I don't support putting arms in the classrooms--it's a terrible idea.
The force you speak of may not have been effective in a response. However they did provide a deterrent; just like the rent-a-cops in nearly every mall in the nation, every Ross store, every Target, etc...
But again, if you're going to call cops to show up with arms to put down the attack, why not have them closer; on campus?
Or how about trained teachers and staff?
All of that is fine and I applaud any attempt to make kids safer through physical barriers. I don't support putting arms in the classrooms--it's a terrible idea.
The force you speak of may not have been effective in a response. However they did provide a deterrent; just like the rent-a-cops in nearly every mall in the nation, every Ross store, every Target, etc...
But again, if you're going to call cops to show up with arms to put down the attack, why not have them closer; on campus?
Or how about trained teachers and staff?
I don't think that is a good idea.
First You guys want to pay teachers only marginally better than Wal*Mart pays it's associates and now you want to arm them? No thanks.
Additionally, if you are a Teacher, I want you focused on the classroom. More often than not the threat will come from outside the classroom and that is where you need the response to be.
Finally, when the teacher is not present in the classroom and the kids know there is a firearm somewhere in the room...what do you think will happen?
Another whacked-out Libberhoid with a gun goes nuts.
A gunman who opened fire at a Georgia elementary school on Tuesday was armed with an AK-47 "and a number of other weapons," police said. The shooter barricaded himself in the school's front office with employees before eventually surrendering to police, DeKalb County Police Chief Cedric Alexander told reporters. The outcome could have been much different if a school office worker had not talked the gunman down.
Only 8 months after Sandy Hook, another elementary school is attacked by a heavily armed gunman. The next time we may not be so lucky.
Again, school shooting terror -- but a relieved outcome
Any effort to improve school security is an expensive proposition. With most school districts straining to find funds to support education in classrooms, I doubt that much will be done to really improve school security.I worked in a school system some years ago. We had school resource officers, police officers with special training. There was one assigned full time to each high school and most of the middle schools. I've wondered just how effective these people would actually be in a school attack. This type of school violence is so rare, I doubt they would be prepared for it. They spent most of their time away from schools, dealing with with security issues, juvenile delinquency, truancy, drugs, court appearances, and public relations. In the city I live in now, response time to school violence is only a few minutes. However, schools in rural areas have much slower response times from law enforcement.I agree with you 100% but I will say this;
Having armed guards in schools is simply a good idea; a "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" is how I heard it put one time.
If someone shows up at a school to shoot people, what do you do? Call the cops; you call good guys with guns and hope they bring a lot of their friends. Therefore, it seems bizarre to me that some--not saying you but some--think having a "good guy" with a gun on site is a bad idea.
The one thing we can do to make schools safer at less cost than armed guards is better school lock-down programs, and better security measures in the schools. In most schools, exterior doors, corridor doors, and classroom doors can't be locked due to fire codes. Electronic locks could be use to seal off corridors and classrooms giving law enforcement the time they need to respond. Some schools still don't even have lock-down drills. We can do a lot to make our schools safer. It's just takes money.
All of that is fine and I applaud any attempt to make kids safer through physical barriers. I don't support putting arms in the classrooms--it's a terrible idea.
The force you speak of may not have been effective in a response. However they did provide a deterrent; just like the rent-a-cops in nearly every mall in the nation, every Ross store, every Target, etc...
But again, if you're going to call cops to show up with arms to put down the attack, why not have them closer; on campus?
Or how about trained teachers and staff?
I don't think that is a good idea.
First You guys want to pay teachers only marginally better than Wal*Mart pays it's associates and now you want to arm them? No thanks.
Additionally, if you are a Teacher, I want you focused on the classroom. More often than not the threat will come from outside the classroom and that is where you need the response to be.
Finally, when the teacher is not present in the classroom and the kids know there is a firearm somewhere in the room...what do you think will happen?
So teachers arent paid enough to be responsible with firearms but are paid enough to be responsible with children?
Doesnt say much for your view of children.
Any effort to improve school security is an expensive proposition. With most school districts straining to find funds to support education in classrooms, I doubt that much will be done to really improve school security.I worked in a school system some years ago. We had school resource officers, police officers with special training. There was one assigned full time to each high school and most of the middle schools. I've wondered just how effective these people would actually be in a school attack. This type of school violence is so rare, I doubt they would be prepared for it. They spent most of their time away from schools, dealing with with security issues, juvenile delinquency, truancy, drugs, court appearances, and public relations. In the city I live in now, response time to school violence is only a few minutes. However, schools in rural areas have much slower response times from law enforcement.
The one thing we can do to make schools safer at less cost than armed guards is better school lock-down programs, and better security measures in the schools. In most schools, exterior doors, corridor doors, and classroom doors can't be locked due to fire codes. Electronic locks could be use to seal off corridors and classrooms giving law enforcement the time they need to respond. Some schools still don't even have lock-down drills. We can do a lot to make our schools safer. It's just takes money.
All of that is fine and I applaud any attempt to make kids safer through physical barriers. I don't support putting arms in the classrooms--it's a terrible idea.
The force you speak of may not have been effective in a response. However they did provide a deterrent; just like the rent-a-cops in nearly every mall in the nation, every Ross store, every Target, etc...
But again, if you're going to call cops to show up with arms to put down the attack, why not have them closer; on campus?
They'll welcome your contributions I am sure.I don't think that is a good idea.
First You guys want to pay teachers only marginally better than Wal*Mart pays it's associates and now you want to arm them? No thanks.
Additionally, if you are a Teacher, I want you focused on the classroom. More often than not the threat will come from outside the classroom and that is where you need the response to be.
Finally, when the teacher is not present in the classroom and the kids know there is a firearm somewhere in the room...what do you think will happen?
So teachers arent paid enough to be responsible with firearms but are paid enough to be responsible with children?
Doesnt say much for your view of children.
Teachers aren't paid enough period.
Gun Control Strategists' Battle Plan Explicitly Includes Pushing Emotionalism and Suppressing Facts
Ace of Spades HQ
If you missed the Washington Examiner's amazing exposé, and then Taranto's column, and then you missed Andy writing about it yesterday, here's your chance to finally make amends.
Newly uncovered Democratic anti-NRA talking points urge anti-gun advocates and politicians to hype high-profile gun incidents like the Florida slaying of Trayvon Martin to win support for new gun control laws.
In talking points likely followed by top Democratic leaders including President Obama after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in December, the anti-gun "guide" urged gun foes to speak out when a shooting "creates a unique climate" to shout down the National Rifle Association.
"The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak," said the 80-page document titled "Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging," and produced by three Democratic firms led by the polling and research outfit Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.
The guide was produced in 2012, before the Sandy Hook shootings. According to a report posted on NRA News from Examiner.com, not connected to the Washington Examiner, it was developed to help anti-gun advocates in Washington State's effort to control gun purchases, though it clearly has national overtones and uses, especially as groups like Mayors Against Illegal Guns -- a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner client -- expand their fight for gun control.
The guide spells out how to talk about gun control and when to press the issue, the best time being in the wake of a publicized shooting. For example, it calls on gun control advocates to speak out, "don't wait" for the facts, after a shooting like Martin's heightens awareness of the issue.
"The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora, and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts," said the guide.
"A high-profile gun violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence," added the talking points. "We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence," said the guide, which also urged advocates use images of scary looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.
This is an accidental disclosure of the truth every bit as arresting and important as Mitt Romney's "47%" remark (which itself was actually off-the-cuff, and not a thought-out, written strategy guide).
So why isn't the media talking about it?
For an obvious reason: They follow the guide themselves. How can they publicize a story that explains the manner in which they permit themselves to be used by gun-control advocates?
Indeed, by employing most of these tactics themselves first, they practically wrote the guide. The authors of the guide are really just collators of the fine work the media has already done.
By the way, be careful of this blog-- it's a Tactical Blog. Some of the posts are even Semi-Automatic.
Actually most of them are but, hey, so are David Brooks' columns.
Edge:
I remember in the Movie 'Red October' when Fred Thompson's character as Admiral of a Carrier Group said to one of his subordinates, "Son, commies don't take a dump without a plan."
Remember that. Ever wonder why they all sound the same? It's all coordinated. And most of them don't even know it
Any effort to improve school security is an expensive proposition. With most school districts straining to find funds to support education in classrooms, I doubt that much will be done to really improve school security.All of that is fine and I applaud any attempt to make kids safer through physical barriers. I don't support putting arms in the classrooms--it's a terrible idea.
The force you speak of may not have been effective in a response. However they did provide a deterrent; just like the rent-a-cops in nearly every mall in the nation, every Ross store, every Target, etc...
But again, if you're going to call cops to show up with arms to put down the attack, why not have them closer; on campus?
I call BS on them not being able to find money.
Anytime they want they seem to be able to float bond issues to build stadiums for their districts. One in Dallas did a $119M issue; $60M of which went to build a football stadium.
Just tell the voters it's for stadium security...LOL and there is a "credible unspecified threat" to the press box.
I am a gun owner but I don't think certain guns should be sold. Period. Where does it end? Nukes for everyone?
Any effort to improve school security is an expensive proposition. With most school districts straining to find funds to support education in classrooms, I doubt that much will be done to really improve school security.
I call BS on them not being able to find money.
Anytime they want they seem to be able to float bond issues to build stadiums for their districts. One in Dallas did a $119M issue; $60M of which went to build a football stadium.
Just tell the voters it's for stadium security...LOL and there is a "credible unspecified threat" to the press box.
The thinking has to change by making this a federal issue and federally funded nationwide. States cannot do what needs to be done.
