Obama Administation Shifts $45 Million For Armed Cops In Schools -- a la NRA (states, guns)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh my! It's interesting, how the disarmament junkies blather on about "common sense"and can display such a complete lack of that quality. Firstly, Hassan is not a typical mass shooter profile. He was a soldier, who knew the inside operations of Fort Hood. His attack followed military tactics, taking the armed people out first, while he had the element of surprise. He is a terrorist, motivated by zealotry, dedicated to a cause. That hardly describes Adam Lanza or Patrick Purdy.
The latter types, who are typical of mass shooters, choose soft targets, giving them total domination over their victims, without fear of facing someone who can and will fight back. That link is totally nonsensical. One attack that did not follow the soft target profile proves nothing. Besides, Hassans tactics used the fact he was an insider, and complacency of personnel was his ally. If your assertions were accurate, then why don't wackos try and shoot up police stations, gun clubs, National Guard armories, etc? Nope, schools are a favorite target. The most helpless type of target.
Proudly advertising such places are "gun free zones" may make some folks feel warm and fuzzy, but it actually equates to inviting the coyotes to open house at your chicken coop.
Oh my! It's interesting, how the disarmament junkies blather on about "common sense"and can display such a complete lack of that quality. Firstly, Hassan is not a typical mass shooter profile. He was a soldier, who knew the inside operations of Fort Hood. His attack followed military tactics, taking the armed people out first, while he had the element of surprise. He is a terrorist, motivated by zealotry, dedicated to a cause. That hardly describes Adam Lanza or Patrick Purdy.
The latter types, who are typical of mass shooters, choose soft targets, giving them total domination over their victims, without fear of facing someone who can and will fight back. That link is totally nonsensical. One attack that did not follow the soft target profile proves nothing. Besides, Hassans tactics used the fact he was an insider, and complacency of personnel was his ally. If your assertions were accurate, then why don't wackos try and shoot up police stations, gun clubs, National Guard armories, etc? Nope, schools are a favorite target. The most helpless type of target.
Proudly advertising such places are "gun free zones" may make some folks feel warm and fuzzy, but it actually equates to inviting the coyotes to open house at your chicken coop.
I made my argument against putting armed guards in every school and what we should do instead but nobody addressed it. I am not a disarmanent junky. I fully support gun rights and the 2nd amendment.
To arm every school with guards is (excuse the pun) an overkill and complete waste of money when that money could be better used.
There were armed police officers all over the Boston Marathon but that didn't stop anyone. People like Lanza who are intent on doing harm can figure out dozens of ways to do that. Is it better for him to pull a car loaded with explosives next to a bus and set it off? Will armed guards in schools stop that?
No, we need to concentrate any money we spend on those with mental illnesses and even then we will never stop everyone.
I made my argument against putting armed guards in every school and what we should do instead but nobody addressed it. I am not a disarmanent junky. I fully support gun rights and the 2nd amendment.
To arm every school with guards is (excuse the pun) an overkill and complete waste of money when that money could be better used.
There were armed police officers all over the Boston Marathon but that didn't stop anyone. People like Lanza who are intent on doing harm can figure out dozens of ways to do that. Is it better for him to pull a car loaded with explosives next to a bus and set it off? Will armed guards in schools stop that?
No, we need to concentrate any money we spend on those with mental illnesses and even then we will never stop everyone.
There is a big difference twixt a shooter scenerio and a bomber. No, it is unlikely armed security would stop a bomber. But, wackos like Purdy or Lanza are not going to use explosives. Explosives require skill to use, they are the tool of terrorists, not unstable nuts who are angry about being alienated or picked on. Oklahoma City and Boston, both terrorist acts, are the only explosives use incidents, of real consequence, I can bring to mind.
Armed security CAN stop a shooter. I still think protecting our schools this way is proper and needed. There is no time to wait on the cops to respond. Lives WILL be lost, that could be saved, by taking out a shooter before he/she really gets on a roll. Coupled with other proper security measures, such as restriced/closely monitored entrance, clearance procedures etc. Armed security is not a catch all, I am not saying it is. However, it is a proper measure as a contingency.
Since schools and other such soft targets are first choice for daffy nuts with pranoid delusions and inferiority complexes, hardening these places makes perfect sense to me. That mental instability is a factor, as you mention, it pays to be ready. There is no way of knowing who can just snap, or when. It can't be tracked and monitored effectively. Defense against this is mainly reactive, because of it's unpredictable nature.
There is a big difference twixt a shooter scenerio and a bomber. No, it is unlikely armed security would stop a bomber. But, wackos like Purdy or Lanza are not going to use explosives. Explosives require skill to use, they are the tool of terrorists, not unstable nuts who are angry about being alienated or picked on. Oklahoma City and Boston, both terrorist acts, are the only explosives use incidents, of real consequence, I can bring to mind.
The Boston bombers learned off the internet. Lanza was very bright. He most certainly could have built a bomb. Lanza took years to plan his attack. He most certainly was capable. As capable certainly as the Boston bombers.
Quote:
Armed security CAN stop a shooter. I still think protecting our schools this way is proper and needed. There is no time to wait on the cops to respond. Lives WILL be lost, that could be saved, by taking out a shooter before he/she really gets on a roll. Coupled with other proper security measures, such as restriced/closely monitored entrance, clearance procedures etc. Armed security is not a catch all, I am not saying it is. However, it is a proper measure as a contingency.
An armed shooter can stop another armed shooter but it's a silly argument that we should pay for I have no idea how many, 20,000 armed shooters a year to stop one person once every few years? Seriously, how does that make sense? That's as asinine as searching the underwear of old women getting on a plane.
I have no problem with allowing a teacher with their carry permit to carry to school though. That is a far more sane solution.
Quote:
Since schools and other such soft targets are first choice for daffy nuts with pranoid delusions and inferiority complexes, hardening these places makes perfect sense to me. That mental instability is a factor, as you mention, it pays to be ready. There is no way of knowing who can just snap, or when. It can't be tracked and monitored effectively. Defense against this is mainly reactive, because of it's unpredictable nature.
Seems to me that malls have been attacked as much as schools but it's irrelevant for the reasons I note above.
The Boston bombers learned off the internet. Lanza was very bright. He most certainly could have built a bomb. Lanza took years to plan his attack. He most certainly was capable. As capable certainly as the Boston bombers.
An armed shooter can stop another armed shooter but it's a silly argument that we should pay for I have no idea how many, 20,000 armed shooters a year to stop one person once every few years? Seriously, how does that make sense? That's as asinine as searching the underwear of old women getting on a plane.
I have no problem with allowing a teacher with their carry permit to carry to school though. That is a far more sane solution.
Seems to me that malls have been attacked as much as schools but it's irrelevant for the reasons I note above.
I can buy into school staff with CCW permits to carry on campus. , in lieu of seperate guards. However, I also feel, that if they do so, they be required to train and qualify, on a schedule. Emphasis being placed on performance under stress. Just having a CCW is not enough, when they are tasked with response to an active shooter, and protecting children. Certain higher standards should apply. School staff who are going to be armed should, perhaps, be required to attend courses at places like the LFI, Thunder Ranch or Frontsight.
Talking about bombing in the context of this issue here is non sequitur. Totally different set of circumstances. Someone who uses explosives would probably have a far different motive than a rouge single shooter. Someone like Purdy or Lanza wants to see the terror in their victims. Such sick and perverted individuals want the victims to see them, and know it's them in control of life and death. Use of explosives makes their mangy acts less personal and denies them the twisted sick pleasure of seeing the death and mayhem they inflict, first hand.
As to paying armed security in response to these incidents, which you state are to infequent to justify the positions, I beg a question. Certain groups, many very influential, would ban entire classes of firearms from civilian ownership, and heavily restrict all gun ownership for all people, as a solution. Does that make any sense? I find these proposals as blatantly silly as you find armed school security staff.
The federal government should not be involved in providing security at schools, that should be left up to each district and many schools across the nation have already made their choice.
I can buy into school staff with CCW permits to carry on campus. , in lieu of seperate guards. However, I also feel, that if they do so, they be required to train and qualify, on a schedule. Emphasis being placed on performance under stress. Just having a CCW is not enough, when they are tasked with response to an active shooter, and protecting children. Certain higher standards should apply. School staff who are going to be armed should, perhaps, be required to attend courses at places like the LFI, Thunder Ranch or Frontsight.
All good with me.
Quote:
Talking about bombing in the context of this issue here is non sequitur. Totally different set of circumstances. Someone who uses explosives would probably have a far different motive than a rouge single shooter. Someone like Purdy or Lanza wants to see the terror in their victims. Such sick and perverted individuals want the victims to see them, and know it's them in control of life and death. Use of explosives makes their mangy acts less personal and denies them the twisted sick pleasure of seeing the death and mayhem they inflict, first hand.
This is the same failed logic that causes people to think that just because we legalize drugs, drug dealers are going to go out and get a job at Mcdonalds. Lanza wasn't going to ever say......darn there are armed gaurds at the school, I'm not going to kill. Maybe he picks the playground, the parking lot as people are leaving, who knows what all someone like him will come up with.
Quote:
[As to paying armed security in response to these incidents, which you state are to infequent to justify the positions, I beg a question. Certain groups, many very influential, would ban entire classes of firearms from civilian ownership, and heavily restrict all gun ownership for all people, as a solution. Does that make any sense? I find these proposals as blatantly silly as you find armed school security staff.
They are very silly for the same reason. Lanza wasn't going to not kill just because guns were made harder to get.
The NRA had nothing to do with "how" the idea got funded. It is still an absurdly small amount. If we can spend 500+ million(YES THAT'S HALF A BILLION) building a single high school I am sure we can find money somewhere for armed security.
You must have had that idea before the Sandy Hook shooting, because the NRA suggested this immediately after the shooting.
... yes, and the Liberal MSM shot the idea down right away and out of hand ... called the NRA crazy fools, and on and on and on ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
