Dont think police in school is the answer?
- Thread starter gspn
- Start date
- Status
Wanderling
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2011
- Messages
- 923
If Obama and Biden suggested tightening background checks, closing loopholes, including requiring mental health checks, and adding criminal charges for gross negligence (e.g. keeping a loaded gun outside of safe in a house with mentally ill) I'd support that... if the underlying details made sense and if the resulting law was well debated by both sides.
Instead, they will likely just bring back Clinton's AWB and limits on magazine capacity. Something that didn't work before.
Instead, they will likely just bring back Clinton's AWB and limits on magazine capacity. Something that didn't work before.
xXxplosive
Member
Just like we have Air Marshalls on planes we should have them in schools too....It saddens me to think how the Libral Left is against protecting our kids for their political agenda.......it's truly shameful.
Batty67
Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there an armed guard or police officer at Columbine who got in a position (after a few minutes to get there) to shoot at one of the two murderers and had to retreat in a hail of gunfire? I personally don't think an armed guard would necessarily do a damn thing. The Newtown shooter had a bullet proof vest on, right?
I think it is an option, but as others have noted, not a panacea.
I think it is an option, but as others have noted, not a panacea.
The Antis don't want armed security in schools, armed cops in schools, or armed teachers in schools.
They don't care in any way shape or form about schools, children or the mentally ill. They don't care about stopping crime or criminals because they fear guns more than they fear crime.
What they just want, FOR NOW, is their beloved Assault Weapons Ban back in place permanently.
They don't care in any way shape or form about schools, children or the mentally ill. They don't care about stopping crime or criminals because they fear guns more than they fear crime.
What they just want, FOR NOW, is their beloved Assault Weapons Ban back in place permanently.
stoney1666
Member
I'm not against cops in schools, but what if they start attacking school busses, then put a cop on every school bus, where does it stop?
I'm not a fan of LaPierre, but I watched his address on Friday and I thought he was perfectly sane, and perfectly reasonable.
I was particularly struck by his positioning one set of proposals that might, just possibly, have some effect, maybe 20, 30, 50 years from now, against a set of proposals that would take protective effect NOW.
If, for example, I and a handful of my licensed, retired friends could get just one local school to OK our volunteering to take up positions in the school during school hours, that would constitute an absolute guarantee, from that moment forward, that not one child would be endangered from outside assaults. A single trained police officer, with video coverage of all entrances, could probably establish the same guarantee. In a sane world such a proposal could take effect TOMORROW.
There might be other immediate steps that could be taken as well, and take a few generations of children out of harm's way, rather than waiting for some feeble gun ban to take the imagined effects, years from now.
I think that centering the discussion on that comparison might help a lot to clarify the issues and the solutions.
I was particularly struck by his positioning one set of proposals that might, just possibly, have some effect, maybe 20, 30, 50 years from now, against a set of proposals that would take protective effect NOW.
If, for example, I and a handful of my licensed, retired friends could get just one local school to OK our volunteering to take up positions in the school during school hours, that would constitute an absolute guarantee, from that moment forward, that not one child would be endangered from outside assaults. A single trained police officer, with video coverage of all entrances, could probably establish the same guarantee. In a sane world such a proposal could take effect TOMORROW.
There might be other immediate steps that could be taken as well, and take a few generations of children out of harm's way, rather than waiting for some feeble gun ban to take the imagined effects, years from now.
I think that centering the discussion on that comparison might help a lot to clarify the issues and the solutions.
Actually, I don't believe it is the answer either, but for the following reasons.
First, the issue is really the existence of gun free zones. If you simply put a cop in a school, that is better than nothing, but if the CCW is still restricted, you still have a gun free zone with one cop.
Utah has the answer, don't restrict CCW on public schools and colleges. Our focus should be to continue to expand concealed carry rights and let the people defend themselves. The coward in the OR mall committed suicide after he saw someone with a gun. They didn't even have to shoot the gun, he just went into his end game plan of suicide at the sight of a gun.
That is also a cost neutral proposal that won't cost the tax payers a dime in extra costs. If you wish to then target police in high risk schools, that would be a better utilization of tax payer money and limited resources. Removing gun free zones is the target, not cops in the schools.
I can't agree on how effective the NRA press conference was. In my opinion, it was a PR disaster. It is time for entering and guiding the debate. If you wish to change people's opinions, then you need their buy in. That takes time. Rushing to a unilateral solution is simply bad form with a complex and emotional issue. It only engenders further mistrust of the NRA with building that platform of mutually agreed upon courses of action.
As I noted in a prior thread, they need to reframe the question from "what can we do about gun violence?" to "how can we improve school security?" The first leads to gun restrictions, the second leads to considerations of true security improvement which means CCW and armed school guards as a natural conclusion to that question.
Right now, Obama is winning the stage of setting the question. The NRA press conference and Sunday shows missed a huge opportunity to reframe the question. They were not effective at all. In such, we need to make sure that the politicians who will vote on these factors are able to reframe the question correctly. The NRA did not get the job done.
mljdeckard
Member
fdashes, yes. Access must be tightly controlled. Preferable single-point, recessed. You can still have emergency exits, but no hardware on the exterior, except for a deadbolt key port. All glass must be bullet resistant. Anything less, and all anyone is doing is just messing around.
Actually the armed guard confronted one of the creeps outside, exchanged gun fire then the guy ran back into the building. A second patrol officer also confronted and shot at one outside, but when they retreated into the building, the cops stayed outside and set up a perimeter which is what they were trained to do at that time.
Since then, the cops now go by the Active Shooter protocols to intervene and not wait for SWAT to arrive. The Colorado Springs church shooting in 2007 was stopped by a former LEO who met the creep at the point of entry into the building and aggressive countered him exposing her to gun fire openly. She won that gun fight that day and the creep capped himself after she severely wounded him.
With superior training and tactics and an AR in all police cars, they are much better prepared today than in 1999 in Columbine. One well trained and properly armed and positioned cop could be very effective.
Kevin Rohrer
Member
You mean $24-40 million.
Kevin Rohrer
Member
It would displace the problem to another location, but probably won't entirely prevent it.
4thHorseman
Member
Original poster, you do not believe police at school is the answer. I recently came across this article (link) stating Obama's daughters have police in their school.
Police in schools must be the answer for Obama. JMHO
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...s-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service
Police in schools must be the answer for Obama. JMHO
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...s-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service
TAKtical
Member
I agree that the mentally ill are a big part of the problem but I still feel that better security in the schools will help. Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is important but we do have laws and restrictions in place for that. Also, stricter restrictions for those with "a history of mental illness" could be more harmful to 2A than anything that we are facing now. It would be very easy for the anti's to use that against us in a huge way. How many of you have been treated for depression in the past? Maybe a family member died and you had a really bad few months. You now have a history of mental illness. If your wife (god forbid) had postpartum depression, she has a history of mental illness. Ever had a panic attack from stress? You now have a history of mental illness.
Dude...that post is incoherent. The point of my post is that some form of armed presence is a piece of the solution. I cant tell from your post if you are agreeing or disagreeing with that premise.
While I am not sure about arming teaches and administrators, an armed presence in the schools could be a deterrent.
I feel the armed official needs to be trained in special situations, something that the rank and file teacher/administrator would not take seriously or adequately, for the most part.
As far as funding these officers, why not add them into the normal administration staff of the school where they can make meaningful contributions to the school while protecting the school as well.
As a side note, there is not single quick fix that everybody thinks can happen.
I feel the armed official needs to be trained in special situations, something that the rank and file teacher/administrator would not take seriously or adequately, for the most part.
As far as funding these officers, why not add them into the normal administration staff of the school where they can make meaningful contributions to the school while protecting the school as well.
As a side note, there is not single quick fix that everybody thinks can happen.
doc2rn
Member
I believe we need to use the trained resources we have currently. We have veterans, of multiple conflicts, that have been too injurred to return to full active duty. I don't know of one who missed the oath to defend this great nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. I think we should let them continue to serve so they can get their 20 yrs in.
I agree. Thankfully these situations are very rare.
4thHorseman
Member
I am agreeing with what you say, but being facetious to the fact many politicians have different standards for their lives than the people who elected them to office.
I am in agreement that armed guards are a major part resolving these senseless murders.
Isaac-1
Member
I have had a couple of conversations with people that tend to lean to the left this last week, one of which does counseling for troubled families, etc. Their take on it is people that tend to do these shootings have issues where they search for what they see as people trying to oppress them or authority figures to rebel against and therefore something very visible like metal detectors and armed guards would just tend to set them off. These are crazy people we are talking about for the most part. Neither of them had a good response to my suggestion about covertly arming teachers (concealed carry with propper training, etc.) so they would not provide an overt show of authority figure like a door guard would, instead they made statements about being worred a student would take a gun from a teacher, etc.
- Status
Similar threads
