DescentBB

Duper wrote:

Behemoth wrote:
If so, why don't you speak out against that too?

well, it is when it's revealed. But thats not exactly something we get told very often. To do otherwise would be like spanking your kids at any given time with the explanation that they are going to mess up some time.

There are 33 sets of parents out there without children now. Hopes and dreams shattered. (yes, even the killer's folks) Like said, shool isa safe place and this kind of horror is not expected. When you climb into a car or are in a war zone; there are certain risks that you know you may encounter.

Okay, that was clarified for me thank you.

Now for my opinion on safety in the classroom is really a question of practicality.

Really, do any of you think that a significant majority of the student body would rather a larger percentage of safety procedures over comfort and personality?

I myself believe that most students prefer feeling like school is a place of not just institutional learning, but social, athletic and artistic nurturing refuge, Not like a prison or zoo.

Behemoth wrote:Murder?

As in the same word that comes to mind when troops bust in iraqi homes and rape and kill little girls?

Is that the same word that is coming to your mind?

If so, why don't you speak out against that too?

Right now the words that are coming to my mind are oscillating back and forth from 'red herring' to 'non sequitur'....

Behemoth wrote: Now for my opinion on safety in the classroom is really a question of practicality.

Really, do any of you think that a significant majority of the student body would rather a larger percentage of safety procedures over comfort and personality?

I myself believe that most students prefer feeling like school is a place of not just institutional learning, but social, athletic and artistic nurturing refuge, Not like a prison or zoo.

after hearing more report details yesterday, I'm thoroughly discusted with the "system" (and my spelling) this guy was KNOWN to be VERY unstable and was documented to be unsafe to himself as was to go to couceling by a court order. ... but that was never followed up on. He fellow the hole so big, you could drop a house through it. Not just once was his behaviour evaluated but at least 2 times. He shouldn't have been able to buy a gun, but for some reason his name didn't come up on the list of "danerous and unstable" people. with 2 court orders, I'm not sure what it would take. Unlike Colembine.. or however it's spelled, this guy wasn't an obscure individual that no one really concidered a problem. He was a documented stalker and openly withdrawn (..uh is that possible?)whatever.

I don't think that gun control laws or locking down schools tighter is going to keep this kinda thing from happening if the system in place which should have been adequate enough failed in the most grandest of fashion.

And Behemoth, I agree 100% that a school is more than just classes. It can't help but anything moer than that. We are social creatures, not machines.

Kiran wrote:

Lothar wrote:Trained people carrying guns is a form of increased security.

Yes, cops. But what about teachers?

I wasn't suggesting that we go out of our way to arm teachers.

Only that we allow those who are trained -- whether teachers, students, or janitors -- to actually carry their weapons.

When we create "gun-free" areas, the only thing we really do is restrict trained, law-abiding people from bringing guns there. Criminals will still carry them wherever. To imagine an absurd example, declaring Baghdad a "bomb-free zone" would do exactly ZERO to prevent bomb-related violence. If we're foolish enough to believe a sign that says "no guns allowed" will stop the bad guys instead of the good guys, we're going to see a lot more of these sorts of shootings.

Duper wrote:There are 33 sets of parents out there without children now. Hopes and dreams shattered. (yes, even the killer's folks)

FALSE!
1: Those 33 couples/single parents may not only have one child!
2: When somebody becomes a parent, their hopes and dreams are not solely based around their children!

Bet51987 wrote:I have never heard of a teacher going crazy and shooting all his students,

I have never heard of a teacher bringing a loaded gun into class!

Bet51987 wrote:When I said guns in the hands of teachers, I didn't say the physically or emotionally weak ones (like me ) or faculty, or students. The teacher has to be strong both physically and mentally.

And how do you determine that?

Bet51987 wrote:How? The teachers I have in mind are physically strong, and the "smart gun" they carry under their jacket, or behind their back, can only be fired by them.

And where do you expect them to get the money for a "smart gun"?

To me, an armed teacher would be like having an invisible policeman in the classroom. Pilots carry guns to protect their passengers.

TIGERassault wrote:FALSE!

Cool down there, Tiger.

Your statements had truth to them as well, but only imply a "possibly untrue" for the other statements, not a strictly "false".

---------

Personally, it's interesting to read some of this, as I'm fairly aware that my knowledge of guns and gun issues is pretty limited. The question of armed teachers is an interesting one, especially since I was a teacher in a pretty rough school at one time.

...However, can we please split the "gun-issues" topic from this one, which is specifically about the tragedy at Va. Tech?

So what happens when the supposedly strong teacher has a mental collapse and kills every student in the classroom?

Again, why is adding more guns to quell violence a good idea?

There will always be the inherent risk because even law abiding citizens snap. THIS KILLER WAS A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN!! Until he decided to kill 32 people...

And here we thought you were such a fan of statistical probabilities Zuruck...

Zuruck wrote:Again, why is adding more guns to quell violence a good idea?

I don't think it necessarily would "quell vilonce". It could stop some attackers though and it has already proven to have worked in some instances.
And interestingly enough, contrary to the argument from the other side that it will create more violence, in reality has been proven to not be the case.

So if you use only real world data instead of unsubstantiated fears what you are left with is the fact that usually having properly trained and armed citizens in the vicinity of a crazy shooter will help at best, or at worst, not hurt.

There will always be the inherent risk because even law abiding citizens snap. THIS KILLER WAS A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN!! Until he decided to kill 32 people...

This does nothing to alter the reality above. Anyone who is law abiding that meets the criteria can get a gun and then go to school and shoot someone regardless of whether they previously were carrying a gun at school for defensive purposes or not.
Possessing a gun isn't going to make them snap...not having previously carried one for self defense isn't going to prevent them from snapping...

Zuruck wrote: Again, why is adding more guns to quell violence a good idea?

No one actually stated that it would "Cure" the problem.

They only said it would raise the amount of defense within the schoolzone,

So in moments when officers are not localized in the area they can handle the situation from say, 1-2 students instead of 32 people.

*sigh*

tiger.. people come from somewhere. You obviously are not a parent. If you ARE, then you really should get some counceling. Or at least go down to walmart and buy some common sense.

TIGERassault wrote:

Duper wrote:There are 33 sets of parents out there without children now. Hopes and dreams shattered. (yes, even the killer's folks)

FALSE!
1: Those 33 couples/single parents may not only have one child!
2: When somebody becomes a parent, their hopes and dreams are not solely based around their children!

1: You didn't get what Duper meant.
2: Yes they are.

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I have never heard of a teacher going crazy and shooting all his students,

I have never heard of a teacher bringing a loaded gun into class!

Which is exactly the problem...

Bet51987 wrote:When I said guns in the hands of teachers, I didn't say the physically or emotionally weak ones (like me ) or faculty, or students. The teacher has to be strong both physically and mentally.
And how do you determine that?

The policemen who will train him.

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:How? The teachers I have in mind are physically strong, and the "smart gun" they carry under their jacket, or behind their back, can only be fired by them.

And where do you expect them to get the money for a "smart gun"?

To me, an armed teacher would be like having an invisible policeman in the classroom. Pilots carry guns to protect their passengers.

Towns have money. Parents would chip in. Schools have the rest. It wouldn't cost that much to arm half a dozen in each school.

I'm beginning to think your much younger than me. Either that or you have serious issues in understanding what this is all about. A lot of people my age died in that school and more are going to die before the year is out and I don't take that lightly. They had dreams and aspirations and their parents lives have been permanently shattered. I can't even imagine what is going on in those households but in mine, if my father was one of those victims I would have killed myself. You are very very wrong.

Oh... and what Duper said.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:Higher police protection costs money. Thats what I was told when we discussed this in high school and they can't be at every school all the time. There just isn't enough money.

This is the richest country on the face of the planet. Are you telling me that we couldn't find the money to do so if we needed to? You can get a federal grant for damn near anything these days.

The teacher would be trained just like I was trained in CPR. Other people are trained in Civil Defense. I don't think it would be impossible for a physically strong teacher to shoot someone trying to break into his classroom to kill his students.

And you think this wouldn't cost more than just assigning officers instead?

How? The teachers I have in mind are physically strong, and the "smart gun" they carry under their jacket, or behind their back, can only be fired by them.

To me, an armed teacher would be like having an invisible policeman in the classroom. Pilots carry guns to protect their passengers.

Umm, this isn't James Bond world, this is the REAL world. Such a device would cost VASTLY more, then theres the training, etc. Again, this would cost ALOT MORE than just assigning officers. Furthermore, they aren't going to give such a device to a private citizen. You're shooting yourself in the foot with these fantasies.

Lothar wrote:

Kiran wrote:

Lothar wrote:Trained people carrying guns is a form of increased security.

Yes, cops. But what about teachers?

I wasn't suggesting that we go out of our way to arm teachers.

Only that we allow those who are trained -- whether teachers, students, or janitors -- to actually carry their weapons.

When we create "gun-free" areas, the only thing we really do is restrict trained, law-abiding people from bringing guns there. Criminals will still carry them wherever. To imagine an absurd example, declaring Baghdad a "bomb-free zone" would do exactly ZERO to prevent bomb-related violence. If we're foolish enough to believe a sign that says "no guns allowed" will stop the bad guys instead of the good guys, we're going to see a lot more of these sorts of shootings.

Jesus would've packed heat.

Zuruck wrote:So what happens when the supposedly strong teacher has a mental collapse and kills every student in the classroom?

Whats to prevent a teacher (or anyone) from illegally bringing a firearm to school and kill all his students?
Can you name a time a teacher has done this? Yet we can name numerous instances of where students came to school and killed their classmates.

Lothar wrote:I wasn't suggesting that we go out of our way to arm teachers.

Only that we allow those who are trained -- whether teachers, students, or janitors -- to actually carry their weapons.

I can see your point there. But wouldn't that still pose the risk of someone snapping and starting a massacre?

Bet, a policeman cannot determine if a person is physically and mentally strong. Not even multiple policemen. They're our protectors, not psychiatrics (sp?). The closest a cop can get to even determine that is the kind of cop who has been in the force for an extremely long time and has worked with this guy for a long time.

I think the reason that I cannot see how letting "trained" people licensed to carry guns to school can make the place safer is because I'm uncomfortable with that. I'm more nervous when I see a man walk down the hallway of a school carrying a gun at his hips than when I see a cop walk down with a gun at his hips. Actually I am hardly nervous with a cop at school.

I want to do a compare and contrast question and hear what you guys think.
How can a school be safer with "trained" teachers and staff carrying their guns around versus a current system we have now which depends on the responsibility of students, teachers, and staff to stay safe in the event a situation occurs?

Note: The kind of system we have now would be such as: cameras, security officers, locked classroom doors while classes are in session, any type of suspicion occurs the student/staff will report to the campus police dept.; percautions take place when something small happens... that sort of thing that our school does.

Kiran wrote:

Lothar wrote:I wasn't suggesting that we go out of our way to arm teachers.

Only that we allow those who are trained -- whether teachers, students, or janitors -- to actually carry their weapons.

I can see your point there. But wouldn't that still pose the risk of someone snapping and starting a massacre?

Following the logic of your objection we would have to assume that police shouldn't carry guns because they could snap and start a massacre.

The risk of anyone snapping isn't increased or decreased by virtue of when they carry a gun for defensive purposes.
At best you could say that if they snap while they are in possession of their weapon they can start their massacre without first having to arm themselves. So far all the school shootings and workplace shootings I've heard of are not started spontaneously, they are pre meditated so I don't see this as much of an issue.
Now contrast that with the other side of the coin which is eveytime a rational concealed weapon holder is in the classroom and isn't snapping into a homicidal rage (which statistically is 100% of the time) they are there with the ability to pull their pistol and shoot the attacker as soon as he starts to kill people. In the Virginia Tech example that may have saved nearly two dozen lives! Of course that assumes an armed and willing permit holder was in the room that day... I know I wish I had been there with my trusty Sig 239 .40 because I'm pretty sure that I would have stopped him cold before he finished shooting his second victim...even if I was peeing my pants while it happened!

The knee jerk reaction to allowing people to carry concealed weapons is always to assume the worst case scenario of the weapon added to any situation will result in that weapon doing harm instead of good. Every state that started their 'must issue' policy was flooded with editorials and protests of doomsayers predicting "shootouts at the O.K. Corral". even I was concerned that it would lead to road rage incidents that would give the anti-gun people fuel to have guns outlawed...
The truth is their have been less incidents of citizens using their concealed weapons illegally than their are incidents of police officers doing so. statistically concealed weapons permit holders are the most law abiding subset of the whole U.S. population (not counting children too young to commit crimes).
So in reality you are arguing that the most stable, law abiding gun user in the country is the wrong person to be allowed to have access to a gun. It is a ridiculous argument.

I don't think allowing concealed weapons holders to be armed when they attend class or work in the classroom will really stop many of these events unless more and more teachers and students decide to take on the burden and responsibility of becoming qualified to carry a concealed weapon and go through the pain in the ass of actually bringing their gun along everyday.
Trust me, it is a big pain in the ass to comply with the restricted areas that don't allow it and keep it out of sight etc. etc., mine stays locked up at home 99.9% of the time.
But it sure as hell won't hurt to give them the option.

there are real problems that are created by it too. If the police enter a school today looking for a shooter they can assume any civilian they see with a gun is a bad guy....
Eventually there will be an incident where the gun is misused, stolen, a stray bullet misses the attacker and hits an innocent person...
Even the Secret Service can't seem to avoid shooting them selves in the foot once in a while so it stands to reason that an over eager teacher trying to juggle the job of teaching and his pistol will screw up to some degree.
We accept those rare foul-ups from people who's primary job is to be armed, will we also accept it from Mrs. Hornswaggle the Algebra teacher who drops her pearl handled .38 trying to get her sweater unstuck from her holster in the bathroom stall and accidentally shoots the Valedictorian of the senior class days before graduation and departing on what would have been a glorious life as an adult?

I would send my child to a school that allowed concealed carry and would prefer her teachers were armed if they chose to be but I don't want it to be mandated. The type of person that pursues a permit on their own volition is usually an asset but some teachers aren't responsible enough to referee a game of War Ball let alone tote an auto loading pistol through the cafeteria on a daily basis.

Bet, I'd honestly think that hiring guards would be cheaper than trying to train teachers and then arm them with very expensive guns!

Bet51987 wrote:I'm beginning to think your much younger than me. Either that or you have serious issues in understanding what this is all about.

Stop making personal insults in arguments just because another person has a different viewpoint than you!
It's really bugging me now!

Kiran wrote:

Lothar wrote:I wasn't suggesting that we go out of our way to arm teachers.

Only that we allow those who are trained -- whether teachers, students, or janitors -- to actually carry their weapons.

I can see your point there. But wouldn't that still pose the risk of someone snapping and starting a massacre?

There's always the risk of someone snapping and starting a massacre by bringing a gun into a "gun free" zone. This doesn't introduce any new risk, except perhaps that someone can start a massacre without having to drive all the way home and back, so the massacre could start a little bit quicker.

This does introduce a huge reward, namely, that if/when somebody DOES snap, the chances are greatly increased that they'll run into others who are armed and be stopped. The massacre could start sooner, but it'd also end much quicker -- when somebody else packin' heat saw the guy unloading his clip into a room full of people.

Palzon wrote:Jesus would've packed heat.

We know Jesus was extremely nonviolent, except when it came to clearing the con men out of the temple, at which point he was All Out of Gum (TM). We know He didn't resist when people did violence to Him directly, and we know He told others to "turn the other cheek" and "walk the second mile" and such. We know the famous teaching that says "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, do good to those who hate you."

He also once cautioned that "those who draw the sword will die by the sword" -- though, considering He and the disciples were surrounded by armed men, that teaching was specific to that scenario ("put it away or they'll kill you, and besides, we don't need it, I've got angels at my disposal") rather than the general teaching people try to make it into ("swords are bad, don't have them.") Recall that earlier in the same story, Jesus told His followers to go out and buy swords!

Jesus wasn't a mere pacifist, and certainly wasn't the pansy modern leftists make Him out to be. His teachings didn't center around nonviolence; nonviolence was just one of many things He taught. He also taught people to love their neighbor, to help those in need, and to protect those who most needed it. I have yet to see anyone explain how they're "loving thy neighbor" by allowing their neighbor to be violently attacked and not stepping in. I don't recall Jesus ever saying "soldiers shouldn't have swords", and I do know of the one passage where He tells the disciples they'll need to buy them (EDIT: Luke 22:38).

And when you look at God's actions in a broader sense, He certainly wasn't shy about using force to accomplish goals -- He sent armies, plagues, and storms to cause massive death and destruction when it suited Him. Now, that doesn't mean we should do the same -- as I cautioned in the Capital Punishment thread, God remains in control even after killing someone, while we do not. We certainly shouldn't be nonchalant about killing someone -- if we do it, we better be damn sure it's the only way we're going to stop the guy. But we don't need to treat it like a non-option either.

Point being, if we're asking "what would Jesus do" we need to take everything into consideration, not just the one teaching that happens to agree with our preconceived philosophical ideas. I don't know if Jesus would've carried a gun... but I do know He told His companions to be armed, and I do know He told us to protect those who need it. Creating "gun free zones" does exactly the opposite -- it makes people into easy targets. Whether or not Jesus personally would've carried a gun, whether or not I personally should go out and buy a gun, so long as there are guns out there, there should be those who are willing to use them to defend others. And if someone is both willing to put themselves in danger to defend others AND capable of providing such defense, we should let them.

TIGERassault wrote:Bet, I'd honestly think that hiring guards would be cheaper than trying to train teachers and then arm them with very expensive guns!

aye, this is why there are on-campus police. (in part) they do other things as well.

Duper wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:Bet, I'd honestly think that hiring guards would be cheaper than trying to train teachers and then arm them with very expensive guns!

aye, this is why there are on-campus police. (in part) they do other things as well.

Do they carry guns? The one's at my school don't. This makes them unable to stop a shooter and protect anyone. I'm all for hiring guards as long as they have weapons, know how to use them, and walk the corridors instead of driving around in police cars.

Bettina

Lothar wrote:

Palzon wrote:Jesus would've packed heat.

We know Jesus was extremely nonviolent...

He also once cautioned that "those who draw the sword will die by the sword"...

[God] certainly wasn't shy about using force to accomplish goals...

I'm not sure I agree with a couple of your minor points, but that was a thorough and well-put overview of Christ's words and actions regarding violence. Thanks.

Your point that we have to take everything into consideration is right on. It's always seemed odd me that supporters of either side focus on one thing or another, so one side sees Jesus as a "sword-totin' rebel who overthrew evil" and the other sees Him as a "passive pacifist who never resisted evil".

I personally still haven't made up my mind about some of these gun-related issues, mostly because I don't think I know enough about the subject to make a good decision. So keep up the good (civil) conversation here...

Kiran wrote: I think the reason that I cannot see how letting "trained" people licensed to carry guns to school can make the place safer is because I'm uncomfortable with that.

And why is that? Have you met people that can legally carry and found their character to be wanting?

Kiran wrote:I'm more nervous when I see a man walk down the hallway of a school carrying a gun at his hips than when I see a cop walk down with a gun at his hips. Actually I am hardly nervous with a cop at school.

What makes you think you would ever see the firearm? Your knowledge of what conceal carry means is singulary lacking. You would never see a CCW license
holder with his firearm hanging exposed as it is a big no no. I would suggest to get a better opinion on the issue, is to go through a concealed carry training course. Then check out what your states requirements are to get the actual license. Then perhaps join a shooting league and interact with other firearm owners so you see what these peeps are like. Might change your mind.

As to not being nervous about police at school. You recall the time a female officer was giving a firearm safety lecture at school, dropped her weapon and it went BANG?

woodchip wrote:And why is that? Have you met people that can legally carry and found their character to be wanting?

As a matter of fact, yes. I have. I'm sure you do not have a problem with that.

woodchip wrote:What makes you think you would ever see the firearm? Your knowledge of what conceal carry means is singulary lacking. You would never see a CCW license holder with his firearm hanging exposed as it is a big no no. I would suggest to get a better opinion on the issue, is to go through a concealed carry training course. Then check out what your states requirements are to get the actual license. Then perhaps join a shooting league and interact with other firearm owners so you see what these peeps are like. Might change your mind.

What makes you think I was talking about concealed weapons usage? As a matter of fact, I didn't say anything about CCW license. I was talking about a permit that trained people can have for carrying a gun to school. Maybe you should try reading sentences clearly before making assumptions on what I'm talking about.

woodchip wrote:As to not being nervous about police at school. You recall the time a female officer was giving a firearm safety lecture at school, dropped her weapon and it went BANG?

What does a female officer has to do with this? I'm sorry if I was giving the impression of talking about men carrying weapons around. I'll be more clear: I'm more comfortable with a cop carrying a gun around INSIDE a school than I am with a civilian. And that does not include a concealed weapon because I won't see a weapon to even be uncomfortable in the first place.

To Lothar: I kinda see your point of view in this, but I still disagree. Probably because of my opinion, a gun should not be in school unless a cop is carrying it. I can be a bit stubborn in my mind about that . I am starting to see that there's an equal amount of risks involved for both sides in this case. There's the same advantages and disadvantages, one more or less than the other.

*edit* The reason I am not nervous around an officer is because of the image. It's a cop carrying a visable weapon. If a civilian (even if it's a cop undercover) carries a weapon visibly, my senses will still be heightened and I WILL be aware of the fact someone is carrying a weapon. I shouldn't take in the security that it's just a cop carrying a weapon, but I'm more comfortable with a cop than a civilian.

The problem I have with arming more people (be it teachers or cops or janitors, qualified or not) is that in proposing so, you acknowledge that mass killers are an inherent part of your society and so there would be a structural need for increased protection against killing sprees everywhere in every school.

I refuse to believe your/our society is that bad.

And let's suppose that it is that bad. Even if helpful, more guns is just a band-aid for a more serious underlying problem in American society.

America's murder rate is many times higher than that of western European countries. Whether that's justification for arming everyone or not, I don't know, but the underlying problem has nothing to do with God or guns, yet those are the issues that people keep bringing up.

Blame President Bush! It's HIS fault that America's society has such a violent society!!!!

I think the underlying issue of violence in America is probably some combination of poverty, glorification of violence, and the media always spreading fear and distrust, among other things.

And Tricord, you don't want to accept that mass murdering lunatics are a part of society? You probably don't remember but a couple years back there was that \"hunting massacre\" in Northern Wisconsin. The press was all over it for weeks, but now it is all gone and forgotten. That was less then 15 miles away from my house, it is impossible to deny that killers exist and won't be going away any time soon. The underlying cause is probably rooted far too deeply in society and human nature to ever be completely rid of, and refusing to acknowledge it doesn't change anything.

Tricord wrote:The problem I have with arming more people (be it teachers or cops or janitors, qualified or not) is that in proposing so, you acknowledge that mass killers are an inherent part of your society and so there would be a structural need for increased protection against killing sprees everywhere in every school.

I refuse to believe your/our society is that bad.

I don't know that the frequency of school shootings is such that it warrants adding armed guards...it isn't even practical to put enough guards around to come close to stopping this last shooter, the campus is as big as some small towns!
But allowing those people who are already attending or working at the school, that are also already legally armed, to keep their weapons hidden on their person on campus isn't introducing more armed people into society, it doesn't require more training, and doesn't come with any added expense.

It may not be much of a solution but to purposely disarm them is certainly illogical and counterproductive. Put it this way, if instead of mass murder, the crime we were discussing was arson and a small percentage of the student body and faculty happened to be volunteer firemen and someone said we need to restrict all volunteer firemen on the campus from engaging in any firefighting activities.... wouldn't that sound like a dumb idea to you?

I think it is the irrational fear of the evil handgun that is clouding the judgment on this issue.

I have to admit, in all fairness, when it comes to stopping this particular kind of crime, having a national ban on firearms would probably work out just as effectively if not more so than allowing permit holders to be armed. But neither is much of a solution for this problem. Our discussion of concealed carry restrictions is barely relevant to the situation that started it.

In 2003 over 42,000 died in the U.S. on the roads. Many more thousands were mutilated. By far the most dangerous thing you do is get in your car. Are you afraid while you are in your car? I doubt it, cautious of course, but afraid? Thirty people die in a university campus, a tragedy of course. Of how many millions of students? And we have to have armed guards in every class in every school?
Stop watching TV news people, take reasonable precautions and live your life without letting the networks tell you what to be afraid of.

Life is dangerous, no one has survived it yet.

In line with what Ford Perfect says, you could walk down the street and get hit by a car whose driver \"snapped\" or \"lost control\". The risk is real and inherent to cars driving around, but it is deemed low enough not to act on it. In particular nobody is:

1. erecting concrete walls between the roads and the sidewalk everywhere to prevent cars from hitting pedestrians.

2. giving pedestrians the right to drive cars on the sidewalk so they can defend themselves in case they're about to be run over by a car from the road.

Will Robinson... As long as the NRA exists they will never allow any form of gun control and are powerful enough to overturn any form of legislation. To try changing that is a waste of time. If we don't protect the schools (from the inside) then we make them easy targets.

Ford... Yes, we need armed guards in school. I'm surprised at your comment but if that is your attitude then hug your kids a little longer before you send them to school.

Bee

Bet, what Ford and Tricord are pointing out is the risk students face at school from a crazy with a gun is much less than the risk faced in many other places or situations everyday.

The sensationalism factor has a lot of people all wound up to do something but since this particular threat is so hard to deal with most of the solutions are over reactions.

For example, although having enough armed guards in schools to be able to stop any sudden crazy shooter attack wouldn't really hurt, the cost of putting that plan in effect would be outrageous.

Think about your own school, imagine it's third period, all the students are in class and somewhere one of them is going to pull out a pistol and start shooting everyone he sees. How many guards would have to be at work spread out in your school at that moment to be able to stop him before he's done. Remember, you don't know what room he's in...so, how many armed guards would it take? Now that is just one school, figure out how many guards per student you need in your school times the number of students in all American schools. The program would cost billions of dollars per year and it still couldn't prevent the first few victims dying each time the crazy started shooting! The cost to benefit ratio is piss poor.

If we took that budget for the guards in school and applied it to other areas of public safety we would save more lives per dollar spent and/or prevent more dangerous situations per dollar spent.

So what do you do, make a bad decision based on the emotional aftermath of a rare event or reign in your reaction to it and make a rational decision? Maybe the best decision right now is a non decision....

Armed guards? Last time I checked, larger college's do have armed guards. They are called campus security. Lets check the VT massacre again. The engineering build was surrounded by police yet the gunmen continued his rampage. The college was legally declared a gun free zone. So I ask again, why in Gods green acres do you think:
1) Passing another gun control law will work

2) and why do you assume armed guards are going to save you unless you are like Rosie O'Donnel and can afford to have your own personal body guard?

Whether you are in a classroom or walking to your car late at night, there will be no one there to help you if a person with ill intent is out to harm you. Get it through your heads that your personnal safety is up to you and no one else.

While we are all fixated on firearms, just remember the two biggest massacre's in america were committed without pistols or rifles. Oklahoma city, the death dealer was diesel fuel and fertilizer. 9/11 it was with $1.99 box cutters. To date I have yet to hear anyone talk of baning any of the three.

Woodchip, our campus security has walkie talkies only and what good were the police who surrounded the building. The mass murder was inside. I already said that one teacher died trying to hold his classroom door shut. If he was carrying a gun, he would have shot through the door and killed the attacker, not the other way around.

Will, with all due respect, its not a rare event and to sit back and do nothing is just not the right thing to do. Look, I'm not talking about guards or janitors. I don't have any other answer except to arm the teachers which would be the least costly. The size of the school isn't a big enough factor because the larger it is the more teachers there are. I'm sick about what I saw, I want something done, I'm all wound up, and I am writing my congressman telling him I want teachers armed. This is all I can do to protect myself short of learning to shoot a gun and hiding it on my person somehow.

Bettina

With all due respect Bet. You are correct it is not a 'rare' event, because 'rare' is not a sufficient adjective to describe the infrequency of school shootings. Actually I seriously doubt there is a single adjective in the entire English language strong enough to describe the infrequency of school shootings given the sheer volume of schools and students in America. Why else would it make such a fuss in the news? The reason the definitely more common automobile accidents and other \"daily dangers\" don't make the news buzz is because they happen all the time, not because they are accepted risks.

Someone should find the average number of school days between shootings in America and the total number of schools to calculate the mean time between school shootings. I would be surprised if it was less then half a million years. I think no matter how you look at it the odds of being involved in a school shooting are astronomically low.

There is nothing wrong with letting a teacher carry a concealed weapon if that teacher has the license and wants too. But mandating it is just shooting yourself in the foot, someone who isn't prepared to handle a weapon won't be of much help should the need to use it arise. Nor is it going to make anyone safer by having an unwanted weapon around. Knee jerk reactions like that will almost certainly lead to bad laws and far greater problems later on.

Thanks Will. As usual you express myself better than I do.
Yes take the money that you want to spend on guns, guards and training and spend it on mental health facilities and professionals. Instead of gun legislation pass laws that make it easier and indeed mandatory for those professionals to act on findings of mental derangement in individuals. Not only would you save the lives of innocents like these victims but you would improve the lives of the mentally ill as well perhaps making some of them into tax paying citizens. But then this is all socialist, Big Government, Liberal talk. I guess more guns are the rugged individualist solution.

I agree with Krom. Mandating people to go armed will be a accident waiting to happen. Only those with a willingness to carry should be allowed. School systems could go to the local police depts. and have them set up a on-going training program so those teachers/workers would have a better ability to cope with a shooting incidence. Heck the police could even make the teachers volunteer deputies. That way those of you who are of a police only mindset should be mollified as to only armed police in schools.

Bet's got a point that the teacher in every room is a great way to distribute a deterrent, the problem is every teacher isn't going to be qualified, even if they are willing, to pull a pistol and hit a target under the stress of deadly conflict.
However I bet you would find more of them willing to use non-lethal force and a side benefit to it is if they miss at least they don't kill any innocent bystanders by mistake.
So if you want to mandate some kind of participation by the faculty to counter a crazy shooter then mandate training with, and distribution of, taser guns.

Bet51987 wrote:

Duper wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:Bet, I'd honestly think that hiring guards would be cheaper than trying to train teachers and then arm them with very expensive guns!

aye, this is why there are on-campus police. (in part) they do other things as well.

Do they carry guns? The one's at my school don't. This makes them unable to stop a shooter and protect anyone. I'm all for hiring guards as long as they have weapons, know how to use them, and walk the corridors instead of driving around in police cars.

Bettina

*sorry for the late reply.*
Yes they do. They are on-duty police. They have a squad car with all the "bat-gizmos".

Mostly they talk to kids and keep an ear to the ground for larger trouble. Last week a guy was arrested for nading out (giving way) pot to Jr. High kids and for also inviting them in and smoking with them. Jr high is middle school here; 6-8 grades. They took a year watching this guy and gathering info. He won't see sunlight for a long time.