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.
Putting words in other people's mouths is bad from. Now, if you make it harder for unbalanced kids to get at daddy's arsenal, would the numbers be likely to increase or decrease?
Surely, it would. Nobody is arguing against that.
If you say, "Let's put armed guards in school, and once while we at it, let's talk about how we can make guns less available to children," everybody would be with you.
If you say, "Let's NOT put armed guards in school, but let's only talk about how we can make guns less available to children," people start to question your motive.
Apparently, we don't live in that society anymore, and handing guns to all the kids won't bring that society back.
Correct we don't live in that society and more guns won't bring it back. I believe nothing will bring it back. It is amazing how American society has changed in the past few decades. Imagine folks, where we may be in the future.
Is anyone concerned that one day a student will use something besides a firearm? Use your imagination, a more intelligent and crafty crazy student could change the game.
As a libertarian, I’m against all forms of government regulation or intervention. But we have to get guns off the streets. There’s too many. Start a gun buyback program like Australia did.
It’s not fair that we live in a world where a nutjob can go to a school, church, concert, workplace, nightclub, and just unload on innocent people.
We can’t stop crappy parents, bad kids, mean bullies, absent fathers, estranged husbands, nutjobs, abused kids, terrorists from existing. But we must take steps to reduce their capability to carrry our mass shootings. Yeah, they’ll just go to cars and knives pistols but those are less efficient at killing.
France also has a terrorism/mass shooting problem but atleast they’ve taken meaningful steps to decrease the number
"But the problem with metal detectors is that it would be a bottleneck and result in a crowd or long line waiting to get through."
There ARE schools that have had them for awhile and do NOT have this "perceived "problem.
We REALLY ARE smart enough to figue these "obstacles" out!
I'd like to see these schools. It's simple physics. You have a lot of people trying to go through a constriction at the same time. Like traffic. We haven't figured out traffic, have we?
Maybe those schools should share their secrets with TSA or courthouses or sports stadiums. Every place I've seen with security checkpoints have large crowds and long lines waiting to get through security.
Putting words in other people's mouths is bad form. Now, if you make it harder for unbalanced kids to get at daddy's arsenal, would the numbers be likely to increase or decrease?
I say they'd decrease, but I'm just speaking from a logical perspective.
I mean, what's the harm in trying? Who does it hurt to try this?
Is it an undue hardship because slackers who own guns now have to buy decent safes?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
No one in their right minds would be OK with arming more high school students? Right? Seems odd that the basic premise of this thread is how to keep guns out of schools and for some of you, the answer is more guns!
Hire more SROs. Even if you have two, that's way undermanned for big schools.
I'm not against metal detectors, but I'm at a loss knowing how that would work. Full disclosure, as part of my last job, I worked high school football games at the metal detectors. We had two detectors, one each at the entrances to the stadium. We'd set the detector up and also have a wand if the big one was set off. Two people at a minimum at each detector, but we'd have a third person when possible just to be an extra set of eyes and ears. Now imagine this at a high school with multiple doors and two or three detectors at each door. How would that work?
And so you have planned out how to best protect yourself legally should one of your kids go nutso and commit mass murder? Yeah, right.
I don't leave guns lying around for them to use to commit mass murder, so yeah... I guess I did plan that out pretty well.
It was quite easy, too.
If one of my kids shot up a school, I'd expect to be sent to prison for failure to keep my guns away from him or her, because part of my job as a parent who owns guns was to be responsible for those guns and I clearly failed if they shot up their school with my guns.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
If you say, "Let's put armed guards in school, and once while we at it, let's talk about how we can make guns less available to children," everybody would be with you.
If you say, "Let's NOT put armed guards in school, but let's only talk about how we can make guns less available to children," people start to question your motive.
To be fair, most of us know that schools already have armed guards, so nobody is really suggesting the ones in place are not needed.
This whole suggestion is weird because the armed guards already exist, and school shootings are still taking place, so I guess armed guards aren't that effective yet?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
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.
