Since 1999 the chance a public school student being killed by a gun in school is 1 in 614,000,000

[OKTexas]

If you're over 50 and can't recognize the decline in the moral fabric of this country over the years, just says you're part of the problem. The programed destruction of the nuclear family, removing discipline from the schools and the home and encouraging deviant behavior, trying to portray it as somehow normal are just a few of the examples. It's all part of the regressive utopian vision, own it, but spare me the crocodile tears when undisciplined kids kill other kids.


.

You didn’t answer my question. What was this golden era you want to progress back to?

Golden era, your term, not mine. Others may allow you to set the vernacular for a discussion, I chose not to. I'll discuss things the way I chose, you're not obligated to respond.


.

Call it whatever you want. You blame liberals for destroying our country and I’m simply asking which decade you would revert back to before the libs destroyed it? We can learn a lot from history so let’s look at it. Which decade was America Great before the liberal takeover? Simple question

You're assuming I think any particular decade was somehow perfect, I haven't made any such claim. What I've said, there have been government policies put into place over time that have had a detrimental effect on our society as a whole. I provided examples of some of those policies, you can either agree with my assessment or not. If you wish to discuss why I hold the opinion on those policies, fine. Don't try to put me in a hole you define.


.

Yeah, equal rights were such a buzzkill for some.

Yeah, and undisciplined, drugged up people killing other people is such a buzz kill for others.


.

 

[candycorn]

You didn’t answer my question. What was this golden era you want to progress back to?

Golden era, your term, not mine. Others may allow you to set the vernacular for a discussion, I chose not to. I'll discuss things the way I chose, you're not obligated to respond.


.

Call it whatever you want. You blame liberals for destroying our country and I’m simply asking which decade you would revert back to before the libs destroyed it? We can learn a lot from history so let’s look at it. Which decade was America Great before the liberal takeover? Simple question

You're assuming I think any particular decade was somehow perfect, I haven't made any such claim. What I've said, there have been government policies put into place over time that have had a detrimental effect on our society as a whole. I provided examples of some of those policies, you can either agree with my assessment or not. If you wish to discuss why I hold the opinion on those policies, fine. Don't try to put me in a hole you define.


.

Yeah, equal rights were such a buzzkill for some.

Yeah, and undisciplined, drugged up people killing other people is such a buzz kill for others.

Well, we’ve got millions of people in prison…many if not most are there for drugs. Would you like less “government intervention” and have none of them in Prison?


.

 

[OKTexas]

Golden era, your term, not mine. Others may allow you to set the vernacular for a discussion, I chose not to. I'll discuss things the way I chose, you're not obligated to respond.


.

Call it whatever you want. You blame liberals for destroying our country and I’m simply asking which decade you would revert back to before the libs destroyed it? We can learn a lot from history so let’s look at it. Which decade was America Great before the liberal takeover? Simple question

You're assuming I think any particular decade was somehow perfect, I haven't made any such claim. What I've said, there have been government policies put into place over time that have had a detrimental effect on our society as a whole. I provided examples of some of those policies, you can either agree with my assessment or not. If you wish to discuss why I hold the opinion on those policies, fine. Don't try to put me in a hole you define.


.

Yeah, equal rights were such a buzzkill for some.

Yeah, and undisciplined, drugged up people killing other people is such a buzz kill for others.


.

Well, we’ve got millions of people in prison…many if not most are there for drugs. Would you like less “government intervention” and have none of them in Prison?

Have you ever considered the reason for the explosion of our prison populations can be traced back to when discipline was taken out of our schools and homes. We have several generations that have grown up where there have been no serious consequences for their actions until they find themselves in the jaws of the criminal justice system. Of course you're free to defend the status quo and assume the responsibility for that, or you can demand that misbehaving children get their butts busted when it's warranted and teach them respect for authority and other people. It's a system that worked just fine for thousands of years.


.

 

[candycorn]

Call it whatever you want. You blame liberals for destroying our country and I’m simply asking which decade you would revert back to before the libs destroyed it? We can learn a lot from history so let’s look at it. Which decade was America Great before the liberal takeover? Simple question

You're assuming I think any particular decade was somehow perfect, I haven't made any such claim. What I've said, there have been government policies put into place over time that have had a detrimental effect on our society as a whole. I provided examples of some of those policies, you can either agree with my assessment or not. If you wish to discuss why I hold the opinion on those policies, fine. Don't try to put me in a hole you define.


.

Yeah, equal rights were such a buzzkill for some.

Yeah, and undisciplined, drugged up people killing other people is such a buzz kill for others.


.

Well, we’ve got millions of people in prison…many if not most are there for drugs. Would you like less “government intervention” and have none of them in Prison?

Have you ever considered the reason for the explosion of our prison populations can be traced back to when discipline was taken out of our schools and homes. We have several generations that have grown up where there have been no serious consequences for their actions until they find themselves in the jaws of the criminal justice system. Of course you're free to defend the status quo and assume the responsibility for that, or you can demand that misbehaving children get their butts busted when it's warranted and teach them respect for authority and other people. It's a system that worked just fine for thousands of years.
.

I actually agree with your first point on the prison question; we have too many people in prison for “crimes” (re: Behavior) that we simply do not like. Smoke a joint—go to jail? Prisons exploded when we started adding more and more crimes to the books. It also got a boost when we got rid of the medical infrastructure that addressed mentally challenged persons and, like a tub, the prison collects those who fell into the abyss.

You’re not wrong in what you write, by the way. I agree with that too. When we started persecuting people for disciplining their own kids with safe, sane, reprimands…that is when we took our eyes off the ball.

Not sure how we got from civil rights marchers to this topic but here we are.

 

[healthmyths]

You're assuming I think any particular decade was somehow perfect, I haven't made any such claim. What I've said, there have been government policies put into place over time that have had a detrimental effect on our society as a whole. I provided examples of some of those policies, you can either agree with my assessment or not. If you wish to discuss why I hold the opinion on those policies, fine. Don't try to put me in a hole you define.


.

Yeah, equal rights were such a buzzkill for some.

Yeah, and undisciplined, drugged up people killing other people is such a buzz kill for others.


.

Well, we’ve got millions of people in prison…many if not most are there for drugs. Would you like less “government intervention” and have none of them in Prison?

Have you ever considered the reason for the explosion of our prison populations can be traced back to when discipline was taken out of our schools and homes. We have several generations that have grown up where there have been no serious consequences for their actions until they find themselves in the jaws of the criminal justice system. Of course you're free to defend the status quo and assume the responsibility for that, or you can demand that misbehaving children get their butts busted when it's warranted and teach them respect for authority and other people. It's a system that worked just fine for thousands of years.
.

I actually agree with your first point on the prison question; we have too many people in prison for “crimes” (re: Behavior) that we simply do not like. Smoke a joint—go to jail? Prisons exploded when we started adding more and more crimes to the books. It also got a boost when we got rid of the medical infrastructure that addressed mentally challenged persons and, like a tub, the prison collects those who fell into the abyss.

You’re not wrong in what you write, by the way. I agree with that too. When we started persecuting people for disciplining their own kids with safe, sane, reprimands…that is when we took our eyes off the ball.

Not sure how we got from civil rights marchers to this topic but here we are.

Once again myths over FACTS!

8. Myth: Prisons are full of people in for marijuana possession
Fact: About 750,000 people are arrested every year for marijuana offenses in the U.S. There's a lot of variation across states in what happens next. Not all arrests lead to prosecutions, and relatively few people prosecuted and convicted of simple possession end up in jail. Most are fined or are placed into community supervision. About 40,000 inmates of state and federal prison have a current conviction involving marijuana, and about half of them are in for marijuana offenses alone; most of these were involved in distribution. Less than one percent are in for possession alone.
Top 10 Marijuana Myths and Facts

 

[McRocket]

nd

Nah, seriously, I'm all for having armed guards at schools.

If you're first phone call after the shooting starts is to the cops whom you expect to show up with guns....doesn't it make sense to have a trained, skilled armed guard there already?

My only question is where does it end? You want the guards at day care centers too? What about on school buses?

Won't work.

A school shooter will just kill the armed guard first and then he has the run of the place.

Even if the guard is undercover...the students will quickly figure out that he is a guard.

You’re making assumptions that are both unsupported and frankly stupid

And your post is ignorant in the extremis.

Oh no…not in the extremis!!!!

Where is your proof from unbiased sources that my statement is stupid?
What exactly is 'stupid' about it?

Well, for one thing, your assumptions are that there is one guard for the whole school. Secondly, you assume that she or he is in a softened position with no intel about what may happen. While it is true that attacks can come from anywhere at any time without warning, there is often some sort of indication; a threat made, a look that is given etc… Retail store security guards can usually spot someone who is pinching merchandise. Thirdly, the shot itself if they do shoot the security guard first will give the rest of the school some sort of warning that there is an intruder on the campus. Now if the shot is fatal, that is one thing although it will still act as a warning. If the guard is able to push a panic button or some similar device, the authorities have that much more of a jump on the situation, they can lock down the school, etc…

There are about 100,000 schools in America (not counting daycare facilities). An armed guard worth a plug nickel is going to cost at least $50,000. And the only way your idea will work is to have at LEAST 3 or 4 of them per school. That is about $200,000 per school. That is a total of $20 billion.
Now add in all the daycare facilities and you are probably talking about double that.
Oh brilliant....NOT.
Since you were blunt, I will be as well...your idea sucks.

I will be the first to say that it is a bad idea. It is the quintessential reasonable response to an unreasonable situation.

The bottom line is that whatever scenario you want to enlist, police involvement will be on the menu. Now why do you call the police? To take care of the shooter. Having someone there who can take care of the shooter at the outset just makes sense. Using your logic…”The killer will be able to recognize the cops and they’ll be shot!!! Really?

Almost all mass shooters plan the shooting to at least some extent (that I have read about).
They will shoot the guard first. The guard will have no warning. The nut will simply walk up to the guard with a concealed weapon, pull it out and shoot him before the guard has time to act.
And what can the guard do? Shoot a kid because he suspects he might be carrying? No chance.
The guard cannot shoot until he sees a gun. And by then, it's too late.

And what warning to the others? All of the high body count murders had to have an opening shot. I am quite sure others heard it. Yet they all had high body counts.
So that throws the 'warning' scenario out the window.

And besides, your idea would cost tens of billions of dollars (assuming you use multiple guards per school)...that is ridiculous.

I hate to admit it - but Trump was right. Just pay teachers a little extra to carry concealed weapons (but they have to remain concealed or it's pointless).
There is no way a whacko who craves a high body count will start shooting up a school if he has no idea how many teachers are carrying.

And if students/parents don't like armed teachers? Tough.
It's better then their kids getting blown away.

 

[OKTexas]

You're assuming I think any particular decade was somehow perfect, I haven't made any such claim. What I've said, there have been government policies put into place over time that have had a detrimental effect on our society as a whole. I provided examples of some of those policies, you can either agree with my assessment or not. If you wish to discuss why I hold the opinion on those policies, fine. Don't try to put me in a hole you define.


.

Yeah, equal rights were such a buzzkill for some.

Yeah, and undisciplined, drugged up people killing other people is such a buzz kill for others.


.

Well, we’ve got millions of people in prison…many if not most are there for drugs. Would you like less “government intervention” and have none of them in Prison?

Have you ever considered the reason for the explosion of our prison populations can be traced back to when discipline was taken out of our schools and homes. We have several generations that have grown up where there have been no serious consequences for their actions until they find themselves in the jaws of the criminal justice system. Of course you're free to defend the status quo and assume the responsibility for that, or you can demand that misbehaving children get their butts busted when it's warranted and teach them respect for authority and other people. It's a system that worked just fine for thousands of years.
.

I actually agree with your first point on the prison question; we have too many people in prison for “crimes” (re: Behavior) that we simply do not like. Smoke a joint—go to jail? Prisons exploded when we started adding more and more crimes to the books. It also got a boost when we got rid of the medical infrastructure that addressed mentally challenged persons and, like a tub, the prison collects those who fell into the abyss.

You’re not wrong in what you write, by the way. I agree with that too. When we started persecuting people for disciplining their own kids with safe, sane, reprimands…that is when we took our eyes off the ball.

Not sure how we got from civil rights marchers to this topic but here we are.

Equal rights is a topic you introduced, if you read the whole conversation you'd know I didn't and it has nothing to do with the discussion I was having with the other poster. But now we have a few generations of kids that were drugged in an attempt to control them instead of making the hard decisions to properly discipline them. And this is just one aspect of the moral decay of the country, all pushed as regressive policies on the country.


.

 

[OKTexas]

nd

Nah, seriously, I'm all for having armed guards at schools.

If you're first phone call after the shooting starts is to the cops whom you expect to show up with guns....doesn't it make sense to have a trained, skilled armed guard there already?

My only question is where does it end? You want the guards at day care centers too? What about on school buses?

Won't work.

A school shooter will just kill the armed guard first and then he has the run of the place.

Even if the guard is undercover...the students will quickly figure out that he is a guard.

You’re making assumptions that are both unsupported and frankly stupid

And your post is ignorant in the extremis.

Oh no…not in the extremis!!!!

Where is your proof from unbiased sources that my statement is stupid?
What exactly is 'stupid' about it?

Well, for one thing, your assumptions are that there is one guard for the whole school. Secondly, you assume that she or he is in a softened position with no intel about what may happen. While it is true that attacks can come from anywhere at any time without warning, there is often some sort of indication; a threat made, a look that is given etc… Retail store security guards can usually spot someone who is pinching merchandise. Thirdly, the shot itself if they do shoot the security guard first will give the rest of the school some sort of warning that there is an intruder on the campus. Now if the shot is fatal, that is one thing although it will still act as a warning. If the guard is able to push a panic button or some similar device, the authorities have that much more of a jump on the situation, they can lock down the school, etc…

There are about 100,000 schools in America (not counting daycare facilities). An armed guard worth a plug nickel is going to cost at least $50,000. And the only way your idea will work is to have at LEAST 3 or 4 of them per school. That is about $200,000 per school. That is a total of $20 billion.
Now add in all the daycare facilities and you are probably talking about double that.
Oh brilliant....NOT.
Since you were blunt, I will be as well...your idea sucks.

I will be the first to say that it is a bad idea. It is the quintessential reasonable response to an unreasonable situation.

The bottom line is that whatever scenario you want to enlist, police involvement will be on the menu. Now why do you call the police? To take care of the shooter. Having someone there who can take care of the shooter at the outset just makes sense. Using your logic…”The killer will be able to recognize the cops and they’ll be shot!!! Really?

Almost all mass shooters plan the shooting to at least some extent (that I have read about).
They will shoot the guard first. The guard will have no warning. The nut will simply walk up to the guard with a concealed weapon, pull it out and shoot him before the guard has time to act.
And what can the guard do? Shoot a kid because he suspects he might be carrying? No chance.
The guard cannot shoot until he sees a gun. And by then, it's too late.

And what warning to the others? All of the high body count murders had to have an opening shot. I am quite sure others heard it. Yet they all had high body counts.
So that throws the 'warning' scenario out the window.

And besides, your idea would cost tens of billions of dollars (assuming you use multiple guards per school)...that is ridiculous.

I hate to admit it - but Trump was right. Just pay teachers a little extra to carry concealed weapons (but they have to remain concealed or it's pointless).
There is no way a whacko who craves a high body count will start shooting up a school if he has no idea how many teachers are carrying.

And if students/parents don't like armed teachers? Tough.
It's better then their kids getting blown away.

They will shoot the guard first. The guard will have no warning. The nut will simply walk up to the guard with a concealed weapon, pull it out and shoot him before the guard has time to act.

That didn't happen in Parkland or any other case I'm aware of. Yet you keep repeating your fantasy, do you have a link showing where that has actually happened?


.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Dear healthmyths
Do you have any stats that show the percentage of increase
in the incidents over shorter and shorter periods of time?
How about the influence of copycat shootings, or the amount
of publicity causing others to replicate similar stunts?

What gets me healthmyths is the same cure
for mental illness that spiritual healing provides,
can prevent not only school shootings but the causes
of most of the other types and incidents of crimes.

Instead of comparing one type or case to another to compete for which deserves
more attention, why not focus on common solutions to prevent
ANY and ALL of these deadly crimes and attacks?

You're right as we should address that which deserves more attention. That would be you and/or your family dying in a car accident. That figure is about 1 in 5,051. So, getting in that car and getting on any given road is FAR MORE LIKELY TO KILL YOU AND THOSE YOU LOVE. The reason individuals shrug off dying by car as being unlikely, is because the drivers feel as though they are in complete control of any given situation if they are behind the wheel, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Those drivers coming from the opposite direction....any one of them could experience a medical emergency while driving, or swerve to avoid an object or individual, or fall asleep behind the wheel, or be under the influence of drugs or alcohol while driving, or simply become momentarily distracted, or.....simply be looking at the passenger beside them when speaking.
So, the greater concern isn't 1 in 614,000,000. You are far more likely to die by car, or for that matter, lightning, fall in the tub, attacked by a dog, a plane crash....or a terrorist.

 

[McRocket]

nd

Won't work.

A school shooter will just kill the armed guard first and then he has the run of the place.

Even if the guard is undercover...the students will quickly figure out that he is a guard.

You’re making assumptions that are both unsupported and frankly stupid

And your post is ignorant in the extremis.

Oh no…not in the extremis!!!!

Where is your proof from unbiased sources that my statement is stupid?
What exactly is 'stupid' about it?

Well, for one thing, your assumptions are that there is one guard for the whole school. Secondly, you assume that she or he is in a softened position with no intel about what may happen. While it is true that attacks can come from anywhere at any time without warning, there is often some sort of indication; a threat made, a look that is given etc… Retail store security guards can usually spot someone who is pinching merchandise. Thirdly, the shot itself if they do shoot the security guard first will give the rest of the school some sort of warning that there is an intruder on the campus. Now if the shot is fatal, that is one thing although it will still act as a warning. If the guard is able to push a panic button or some similar device, the authorities have that much more of a jump on the situation, they can lock down the school, etc…

There are about 100,000 schools in America (not counting daycare facilities). An armed guard worth a plug nickel is going to cost at least $50,000. And the only way your idea will work is to have at LEAST 3 or 4 of them per school. That is about $200,000 per school. That is a total of $20 billion.
Now add in all the daycare facilities and you are probably talking about double that.
Oh brilliant....NOT.
Since you were blunt, I will be as well...your idea sucks.

I will be the first to say that it is a bad idea. It is the quintessential reasonable response to an unreasonable situation.

The bottom line is that whatever scenario you want to enlist, police involvement will be on the menu. Now why do you call the police? To take care of the shooter. Having someone there who can take care of the shooter at the outset just makes sense. Using your logic…”The killer will be able to recognize the cops and they’ll be shot!!! Really?

Almost all mass shooters plan the shooting to at least some extent (that I have read about).
They will shoot the guard first. The guard will have no warning. The nut will simply walk up to the guard with a concealed weapon, pull it out and shoot him before the guard has time to act.
And what can the guard do? Shoot a kid because he suspects he might be carrying? No chance.
The guard cannot shoot until he sees a gun. And by then, it's too late.

And what warning to the others? All of the high body count murders had to have an opening shot. I am quite sure others heard it. Yet they all had high body counts.
So that throws the 'warning' scenario out the window.

And besides, your idea would cost tens of billions of dollars (assuming you use multiple guards per school)...that is ridiculous.

I hate to admit it - but Trump was right. Just pay teachers a little extra to carry concealed weapons (but they have to remain concealed or it's pointless).
There is no way a whacko who craves a high body count will start shooting up a school if he has no idea how many teachers are carrying.

And if students/parents don't like armed teachers? Tough.
It's better then their kids getting blown away.

They will shoot the guard first. The guard will have no warning. The nut will simply walk up to the guard with a concealed weapon, pull it out and shoot him before the guard has time to act.

That didn't happen in Parkland or any other case I'm aware of. Yet you keep repeating your fantasy, do you have a link showing where that has actually happened?


.

What guard was at Columbine or Virginia Tech? And if there was a guard at parkland...well that just shows how useless he was and the idea is. Jeez.

Anyway...the point is that it is a ridiculous idea as it will cost tens of billions just for schools.
Tens of billions more if you include daycares. Tens of billions more if you include all post-secondary schools.

Just allow the teachers to carry concealed weapons...problem solved (more or less).

 

[OKTexas]

nd

You’re making assumptions that are both unsupported and frankly stupid

And your post is ignorant in the extremis.

Oh no…not in the extremis!!!!

Where is your proof from unbiased sources that my statement is stupid?
What exactly is 'stupid' about it?

Well, for one thing, your assumptions are that there is one guard for the whole school. Secondly, you assume that she or he is in a softened position with no intel about what may happen. While it is true that attacks can come from anywhere at any time without warning, there is often some sort of indication; a threat made, a look that is given etc… Retail store security guards can usually spot someone who is pinching merchandise. Thirdly, the shot itself if they do shoot the security guard first will give the rest of the school some sort of warning that there is an intruder on the campus. Now if the shot is fatal, that is one thing although it will still act as a warning. If the guard is able to push a panic button or some similar device, the authorities have that much more of a jump on the situation, they can lock down the school, etc…

There are about 100,000 schools in America (not counting daycare facilities). An armed guard worth a plug nickel is going to cost at least $50,000. And the only way your idea will work is to have at LEAST 3 or 4 of them per school. That is about $200,000 per school. That is a total of $20 billion.
Now add in all the daycare facilities and you are probably talking about double that.
Oh brilliant....NOT.
Since you were blunt, I will be as well...your idea sucks.

I will be the first to say that it is a bad idea. It is the quintessential reasonable response to an unreasonable situation.

The bottom line is that whatever scenario you want to enlist, police involvement will be on the menu. Now why do you call the police? To take care of the shooter. Having someone there who can take care of the shooter at the outset just makes sense. Using your logic…”The killer will be able to recognize the cops and they’ll be shot!!! Really?

Almost all mass shooters plan the shooting to at least some extent (that I have read about).
They will shoot the guard first. The guard will have no warning. The nut will simply walk up to the guard with a concealed weapon, pull it out and shoot him before the guard has time to act.
And what can the guard do? Shoot a kid because he suspects he might be carrying? No chance.
The guard cannot shoot until he sees a gun. And by then, it's too late.

And what warning to the others? All of the high body count murders had to have an opening shot. I am quite sure others heard it. Yet they all had high body counts.
So that throws the 'warning' scenario out the window.

And besides, your idea would cost tens of billions of dollars (assuming you use multiple guards per school)...that is ridiculous.

I hate to admit it - but Trump was right. Just pay teachers a little extra to carry concealed weapons (but they have to remain concealed or it's pointless).
There is no way a whacko who craves a high body count will start shooting up a school if he has no idea how many teachers are carrying.

And if students/parents don't like armed teachers? Tough.
It's better then their kids getting blown away.

They will shoot the guard first. The guard will have no warning. The nut will simply walk up to the guard with a concealed weapon, pull it out and shoot him before the guard has time to act.

That didn't happen in Parkland or any other case I'm aware of. Yet you keep repeating your fantasy, do you have a link showing where that has actually happened?


.

What guard was at Columbine or Virginia Tech? And if there was a guard at parkland...well that just shows how useless he was. Duh.

Anyway...the point is that it is a ridiculous idea as it will cost tens of billions just for schools.
Tens of billions more if you include daycares. Tens of billions more if you include all post-secondary schools.

Just allow the teachers to carry concealed weapons...problem solved (more or less).

Most colleges have their own police depts, and most K-12 schools across the country already have SROs assigned to them. Hell in TX, large school districts have their own police depts. We do agree on armed teachers though.


.

 

[McRocket]

nd
And your post is ignorant in the extremis.

Oh no…not in the extremis!!!!

Where is your proof from unbiased sources that my statement is stupid?
What exactly is 'stupid' about it?

Well, for one thing, your assumptions are that there is one guard for the whole school. Secondly, you assume that she or he is in a softened position with no intel about what may happen. While it is true that attacks can come from anywhere at any time without warning, there is often some sort of indication; a threat made, a look that is given etc… Retail store security guards can usually spot someone who is pinching merchandise. Thirdly, the shot itself if they do shoot the security guard first will give the rest of the school some sort of warning that there is an intruder on the campus. Now if the shot is fatal, that is one thing although it will still act as a warning. If the guard is able to push a panic button or some similar device, the authorities have that much more of a jump on the situation, they can lock down the school, etc…

There are about 100,000 schools in America (not counting daycare facilities). An armed guard worth a plug nickel is going to cost at least $50,000. And the only way your idea will work is to have at LEAST 3 or 4 of them per school. That is about $200,000 per school. That is a total of $20 billion.
Now add in all the daycare facilities and you are probably talking about double that.
Oh brilliant....NOT.
Since you were blunt, I will be as well...your idea sucks.

I will be the first to say that it is a bad idea. It is the quintessential reasonable response to an unreasonable situation.

The bottom line is that whatever scenario you want to enlist, police involvement will be on the menu. Now why do you call the police? To take care of the shooter. Having someone there who can take care of the shooter at the outset just makes sense. Using your logic…”The killer will be able to recognize the cops and they’ll be shot!!! Really?

Almost all mass shooters plan the shooting to at least some extent (that I have read about).
They will shoot the guard first. The guard will have no warning. The nut will simply walk up to the guard with a concealed weapon, pull it out and shoot him before the guard has time to act.
And what can the guard do? Shoot a kid because he suspects he might be carrying? No chance.
The guard cannot shoot until he sees a gun. And by then, it's too late.

And what warning to the others? All of the high body count murders had to have an opening shot. I am quite sure others heard it. Yet they all had high body counts.
So that throws the 'warning' scenario out the window.

And besides, your idea would cost tens of billions of dollars (assuming you use multiple guards per school)...that is ridiculous.

I hate to admit it - but Trump was right. Just pay teachers a little extra to carry concealed weapons (but they have to remain concealed or it's pointless).
There is no way a whacko who craves a high body count will start shooting up a school if he has no idea how many teachers are carrying.

And if students/parents don't like armed teachers? Tough.
It's better then their kids getting blown away.

They will shoot the guard first. The guard will have no warning. The nut will simply walk up to the guard with a concealed weapon, pull it out and shoot him before the guard has time to act.

That didn't happen in Parkland or any other case I'm aware of. Yet you keep repeating your fantasy, do you have a link showing where that has actually happened?


.

What guard was at Columbine or Virginia Tech? And if there was a guard at parkland...well that just shows how useless he was. Duh.

Anyway...the point is that it is a ridiculous idea as it will cost tens of billions just for schools.
Tens of billions more if you include daycares. Tens of billions more if you include all post-secondary schools.

Just allow the teachers to carry concealed weapons...problem solved (more or less).

Most colleges have their own police depts, and most K-12 schools across the country already have SROs assigned to them. Hell in TX, large school districts have their own police depts. We do agree on armed teachers though.


.

And I am sure that Virginia Tech had armed guards as well. But one whacko with two handguns killed 31 people anyway.
Which just goes to show how useless armed guards are at stopping mass shooting's.

Anyway...I have made my points.

People want to disagree...fine.


I am done here.

 

[2aguy]

Texas

Teachers/staff can apply for a license and special release to carry concealed at school.

Also, public universities are no longer "gun-free" zones, meaning anyone with a license can carry concealed on any state college or university campus.

That's what caused the whole "cocks not glocks" campaign at the burnt orange school for the retarded hippie in Austin.

Which school? How many armed defenders per student? What’s required to determine a school safe?

Just getting rid of the democrat gun free zone status will do the trick....since we know from actual mass shooters that they target democrat gun free zones.....armed guards are nice, but trained and armed staff are better since shooters can't know who is and isn't carrying a gun, which will make them stop targeting schools

Parkland had an armed deputy .

Who didn't go into the building. He was one guard for a campus of 3,000 people and over 10 separate buildings....and then he didn't go in......

How many armed guards should a school like Parkland have? And how many times do I need to ask you?

How many......that depends, and I don't have the facts about their buildings......it would be far easier to just end their gun free zone status....... A security company could come in and assess what they need...more than one cowardly deputy, that is for sure, they have over 3,200 students and staff and over 10 buildings and fields on campus....

do you think one deputy was enough?

 

[2aguy]

The MSM blows these events so out of proportion so as to sell advertising!
When will you people that get so agitated about banning guns wake up to reality!
Perspective | School shootings are extraordinarily rare. Why is fear of them driving policy?

View attachment 192252

What's the chances of being killed in the UK? Much lower.

It had been much lower than the U.S. before they banned and confiscated guns..... then it went up....and now, for the first time, the murder rate in London surpassed New York the last two months...the country is changing and their murder rates are going to go up.

 

[2aguy]

There is a company that is marketing locks that are activated by gunfire. I can see pros and cons to this type of tech, but you never know, with the right design it could help to isolate a shooter.


.

Why not just keep the doors locked like they already are?

Did you have trouble comprehending my post? I don't think I advocated any changes, just pointed out possibilities.


.

Correcting a problem that does not exist is liberal-level stupidity.

I see denial ain't just a river in Egypt. A problem definitely exist, it's just not with the shiny object the regressives are using to try to deny Americans their constitutional rights. It's with the decaying society the regressives have created over the last 7-8 decades. The current manifestations of that decay are proof positive of that fact.

Regressives create problems and then pretend to be the white knight with the only solutions. Of course those solutions never include reversing the policies that created the problem in the first place, it always involves more government control and a consistent chipping away at personal freedom.


.

What was the golden era when everything was peachy and great before the regressives took over and started degrading it?

The violence started around the mid 1960s, right around when the LBJ war on poverty began....and the break up of the family started....

 

[2aguy]

Nah, seriously, I'm all for having armed guards at schools.

If you're first phone call after the shooting starts is to the cops whom you expect to show up with guns....doesn't it make sense to have a trained, skilled armed guard there already?

My only question is where does it end? You want the guards at day care centers too? What about on school buses?

Won't work.

A school shooter will just kill the armed guard first and then he has the run of the place.

Even if the guard is undercover...the students will quickly figure out that he is a guard.

You’re making assumptions that are both unsupported and frankly stupid

No...it is supported......


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/minn-teen-made-bombs-stockpiled-guns-prep-school-massacre-police-article-1.1776006



The unhinged teen told cops, after being busted Tuesday, that he planned to shoot his sister, mom and dad with a .22-caliber rifle before he went to a rural field and set a fire to distract cops.

The 11th-grader then said he planned to go to Waseca Junior and Senior High School where he would toss Molotov cocktails and explode pressure-cooker bombs to try and kill “as many students as he could” in the cafeteria during lunchtime.

About 1,000 students, in 7th through 12th grade, attend the school.

LaDue, according to the notebook of his plan, would kill the school resource officer before continuing to kill other students. He was prepared to be gunned down by a SWAT Team, police said.

 

[2aguy]

So if NO teacher wants to be an armed teacher Fine! BFD! Why though is is a "silly idea"? What makes it silly?
YES it would be better to integrate! But again why not have the same people at are as the latin word "Educator" meaning "to lead"
The Latin word ducere, meaning “to lead,” and its form ductus give us the roots duc and duct. Words from the Latin ducere have something to do with leading.
So why not have again
A) if the teacher is motivated
B) Qualified
C) Trained
D) Mentally and emotional stable(which would be a given wouldn't it? I mean want a mental defective teaching your kid?)

Again you are making too much of a simple idea. If the teacher wants to be armed then why not let them??? Why is it so complicated?

I’m not closed to the idea but you are making it sound much more simple then it actually is. You are talking, funding, training and safety. Teachers are there to educate first and foremost, that shouldn’t get lost. Also the fact that many parents may not feel comfortable with armed teachers. I school 20 minutes away from where I live had an ex cop doing a gun safety course and the gun was accidentally discharged earlier this year. Accidents happen because people are idiots. So yeah, not as simple as you make it all sound

Teachers are teaching subjects that were considered when I was in school totally the responsibility of the parents.
Again... it is simple. If the teacher wants to be authorized LET them have the option.
Then qualify them. It is that simple. We have teachers qualified to be driver's ed. Teachers qualified to teach kids how to cook. So what is the problem?
Why don't you let the teachers decide if they want to carry?
And by the way YES accidents happen. But you are again making the EXCEPTION drive the RULE...i.e. how many accidental deaths have happened by guns in schools over 19 years?

You are dismissing all the other factors that I brought up which tells me you don’t really want to think this thing through.

Of course I'm dismissing them!
Because they are NOT relevant!
A) You have rogue cops carrying guns! So it is possible some mentally deranged teacher could be armed. Odds??
B) Parents aren't comfortable around "armed teachers"...? Risk reward ratio here at play... how many uncomfortable?
C) You read the headlines about teacher with gun discharged right? Again... you ONLY paid attention to the headlines!
Here are the facts: School district officials told the Monterey County Weekly that Alexander was not authorized to carry a firearm on school grounds.
3 teens hurt when California teacher fires gun during safety course
So please state your facts not the headlines!

AGAIN AND AGAIN I have pointed out to you the Occam's razor approach is better....and I suggest you look up what is Occam's razor... lex parsimoniae!

Yes Alexander was not permitted to have the gun and that’s why he was placed on leave however he is a reserve officer with the local PD and was a teacher and accidentally discharged a weapon in front of a classroom of kids. That has to give you pause as you push to allow more teachers to arm up.

Have you ever worked at a school and really seen how parents act? My girls school just went to war with the parents over a dress code that didn’t allow girls to wear leggings, the parents got it over turned. You think armed teachers is going to be an easy landing? I don’t think so.

Occams Razor in this case would say. To reduce the chances of gun violence in school the simple solution would be to reduce the amount of guns in school... not add more.

There are already 18 states who have had armed teachers for years....nothing you fear has come true......in the real world.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh no…not in the extremis!!!!

Well, for one thing, your assumptions are that there is one guard for the whole school. Secondly, you assume that she or he is in a softened position with no intel about what may happen. While it is true that attacks can come from anywhere at any time without warning, there is often some sort of indication; a threat made, a look that is given etc… Retail store security guards can usually spot someone who is pinching merchandise. Thirdly, the shot itself if they do shoot the security guard first will give the rest of the school some sort of warning that there is an intruder on the campus. Now if the shot is fatal, that is one thing although it will still act as a warning. If the guard is able to push a panic button or some similar device, the authorities have that much more of a jump on the situation, they can lock down the school, etc…
I will be the first to say that it is a bad idea. It is the quintessential reasonable response to an unreasonable situation.

The bottom line is that whatever scenario you want to enlist, police involvement will be on the menu. Now why do you call the police? To take care of the shooter. Having someone there who can take care of the shooter at the outset just makes sense. Using your logic…”The killer will be able to recognize the cops and they’ll be shot!!! Really?

Almost all mass shooters plan the shooting to at least some extent (that I have read about).
They will shoot the guard first. The guard will have no warning. The nut will simply walk up to the guard with a concealed weapon, pull it out and shoot him before the guard has time to act.
And what can the guard do? Shoot a kid because he suspects he might be carrying? No chance.
The guard cannot shoot until he sees a gun. And by then, it's too late.

And what warning to the others? All of the high body count murders had to have an opening shot. I am quite sure others heard it. Yet they all had high body counts.
So that throws the 'warning' scenario out the window.

And besides, your idea would cost tens of billions of dollars (assuming you use multiple guards per school)...that is ridiculous.

I hate to admit it - but Trump was right. Just pay teachers a little extra to carry concealed weapons (but they have to remain concealed or it's pointless).
There is no way a whacko who craves a high body count will start shooting up a school if he has no idea how many teachers are carrying.

And if students/parents don't like armed teachers? Tough.
It's better then their kids getting blown away.

They will shoot the guard first. The guard will have no warning. The nut will simply walk up to the guard with a concealed weapon, pull it out and shoot him before the guard has time to act.

That didn't happen in Parkland or any other case I'm aware of. Yet you keep repeating your fantasy, do you have a link showing where that has actually happened?


.

What guard was at Columbine or Virginia Tech? And if there was a guard at parkland...well that just shows how useless he was. Duh.

Anyway...the point is that it is a ridiculous idea as it will cost tens of billions just for schools.
Tens of billions more if you include daycares. Tens of billions more if you include all post-secondary schools.

Just allow the teachers to carry concealed weapons...problem solved (more or less).

Most colleges have their own police depts, and most K-12 schools across the country already have SROs assigned to them. Hell in TX, large school districts have their own police depts. We do agree on armed teachers though.


.

And I am sure that Virginia Tech had armed guards as well. But one whacko with two handguns killed 31 people anyway.
Which just goes to show how useless armed guards are at stopping mass shooting's.

Anyway...I have made my points.

People want to disagree...fine.


I am done here.

The only point you made is no matter how many cops there are, they can't be everywhere and people need the ability to protect themselves, no matter where they are.


.

 

[Brain357]

Dear healthmyths
Do you have any stats that show the percentage of increase
in the incidents over shorter and shorter periods of time?
How about the influence of copycat shootings, or the amount
of publicity causing others to replicate similar stunts?

What gets me healthmyths is the same cure
for mental illness that spiritual healing provides,
can prevent not only school shootings but the causes
of most of the other types and incidents of crimes.

Instead of comparing one type or case to another to compete for which deserves
more attention, why not focus on common solutions to prevent
ANY and ALL of these deadly crimes and attacks?

If you want to end the already rare school shootings, get rid of democrat gun free zones.....

I almost feel like a broken record repeating it, but when was the last time there was a serial attack/killing at a:

1). Police Barrack?
2). Gun show?
3). NRA convention?

Or any other event when many/most people were known / expected to be carrying guns?

If you want to end serial mass killings, quit giving them easy targets.

In TX all those police officers were victims of a mass shooting.

When was the last attack/killing at an nfl game?

 

[Brain357]

When was the last school shooting in the UK?