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.
I can tell you've never been in the military. Typically, there are armed guards at the gates. Nowhere else, but there may be exceptions (obviously, I have not been on every military base).
I was stationed at 32nd St. Naval base, San Diego, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, and Treasure Island (San Francisco). I only remember seeing armed guards at the gates.
That's correct, the commander at Ft Hood indicated the same, it's a simple safety precaution. They don't want soldiers roaming the base with live weapons, that's a recipe for disaster, yet they want to put guns inside schools in the hands of teachers.
Salary plus benefits. No doubt California is higher, and that's where I got my estimate. I'm equally sure that the cost of officers on campuses in every state would result in fewer teachers, with little gained in terms of safety. Plus, your rebuttal is pretty much of a nitpick and doesn't refute my point.
Some here have said they support teachers having non-lethal weapons for defense. While I'm all for people having things for personal defense, against a crazy person with a gun; tasers, pepper spray, and mace are worthless. The effective range is so short as to be a joke for most consumer models. You'd be better off keeping a full can of wasp spray ready in the class room. Much further range than either a taser or the two defense sprays. It's also easy to aim and can really mess up the shooter especially if you nail him in the face. It's also much cheaper than the previous three options so teachers could easily afford it on their salary.
I proposed the three items you've discounted as worthless. I forgot about wasp spray, and while I agree that it's also a good idea, in California, we are not allowed to keep insecticide in classrooms because someone could be allergic to it. Maybe an exception could be made for "live shooters"?
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,406,723 times
Reputation: 2394
Guns in teachers hands are not a good idea. Teaching is a high stress job (if you are inner city) and any one of them can snap. Armed Deputies/Security is a better choice. If The President, our politicians, the judges and lawyers get to work with Armed security, then it is worth doing for our children. Besides, many schools already have this and (although, by itself, isn't 100% guarantee that gun violence won't happen) it is a vital part of a well thought out plan. My kids go to a school that has about 3 armed deputies (school has about 3 thousand students though) every day. It has even helped in bullying problem. Other parts of a well-thought out plan would be (IMHO) - mandatory checks (including mental health) for all sales/transactions of weapons (including gun shows and personal sales), and mandatory gun safes/trigger locks that have a high standard of quality. This is expensive - but so is owning a car. If you want a weapon (I own 4), then do it right. A good trigger lock cannot be snapped off by a butter knife and takes an extra second to get off if you actually need it that fast. These three would go a long way in drastically reducing our gun violence (especially in schools).
Last edited by Bulldawg82; 12-23-2012 at 08:29 AM..
Here's a question for you. If putting armed guards in schools stops ONE mass killing this century, will it be worth it? No one ever said arming people will stop all crazies but it will stop some. Some is better than none IMO and, as a teacher, I'd like to know there is someone there who can fight back rather than just sit there waiting for my turn to die along with your kids.
This proposal follows the old adage: Do something, even if it's wrong!!!More guns on more campuses will lead to more deaths! Shooters won't even have to show up. Most likely, deranged shooters would simply move on to softer targets, like school bus stops, or malls.
The reasonable solutions are to target outcasts for mental health treatment, and to re-evaluate laws which now prevent parents, psychcologists, and courts from committing nutjobs to mental institutions. While it would be impossible to prevent all attacks, providing proactive treatment to the obvious misfits should reduce the frequency of attacks.
Sadly, the answer is pretty simple. When you get right down to it, most NRA supporters' arguments boil down to this: "F___ you, I want a gun! I want lots of guns! I want easy access to any kind of gun I want, and I want to be allowed to stockpile as many guns as i want. And if giving me that easy access means also giving it to people who can't be trusted with guns--so be it! That's not my problem! And if it ever becomes a problem, I've got my gun!"
What's wrong with having lotsof guns? You pink diaper wearing doper babies need to understand that people are responsible for their actions, not the tools they use. A hammer didn't build that house, a person using that tool did, a chainsaw didn't fell that tree, the person using that tool did.
A couple of facts to think about:
-Sandy Hook is a single building, not a large base or sprawling campus.
-The principal used the intercom to warn the teachers of what was occurring.
-The shooter shot his way into the building.
Given these facts, it isn't a stretch to believe that an armed security guard would have been a factor that day. At the very least, the shooter would have had to neutralize him/her first before assaulting any classroom.
Also, don't you think that if a shooter knows that there is an armed guard at the school, that he may have thought differently of his plan?
No. If everything you said is true, Columbine wouldn't have happened because there was a security guard on campus that day. Arming teachers is such a terribly dangerous idea, I can't believe the NRA even suggested it.
Accidents happened, and that is a fact. Far more accidents that attacks. The OP clearly thinks everyone on base runs around with loaded M16s, and that has never been the case. Bases have NOT been "armed to teeth" for a very long time. It may go back over 100 yeasts, or more. Very few carried private guns on base pre 1993. Why would they
Oh I don't know... maybe because if any terrorist or foreign government wanted to attack the U.S., they would start at a military base to render us defenseless? Just a wild thought.
No. If everything you said is true, Columbine wouldn't have happened because there was a security guard on campus that day. Arming teachers is such a terribly dangerous idea, I can't believe the NRA even suggested it.
I can believe the NRA suggested it. It falls right in line with the belief that more guns is always better than less guns. If they made the laws, we would probably have civilian RPGs.
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.
No doubt California is higher, and that's where I got my estimate. I'm equally sure that the cost of officers on campuses in every state would result in fewer teachers, with little gained in terms of safety. Plus, your rebuttal is pretty much of a nitpick and doesn't refute my point.
Maybe an exception could be made for "live shooters"?
