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.
What type of armed guards? Police officers (already in schools in my area and have been for years). National Guard in full military uniform? Plain clothes officers? Private security firms?
Would this be done on a state level, or Federally implemented?
What type of armed guards? Police officers (already in schools in my area and have been for years). National Guard in full military uniform? Plain clothes officers? Private security firms?
Would this be done on a state level, or Federally implemented?
State, or better yet local level. I generally favor moving government functions to the most local level possible. I don't see why this sort of program shouldn't be able to be administered at the local school district.
As for the type of guard, I certainly would not favor any guards in military uniform. Off topic, but I am dismayed by the militarization of our police force. I see it as a way for the government to exploit a loophole as a way to work around the Posse Comitatus Act. Back on topic: Plain clothes might be best, but I probably wouldn't object to standard police garb.
They need to be well trained for the anticipated threat scenario(s), but other than that I don't have strong feelings about which agency they should be drawn from.
State, or better yet local level. I generally favor moving government functions to the most local level possible. I don't see why this sort of program shouldn't be able to be administered at the local school district.
As for the type of guard, I certainly would not favor any guards in military uniform. Off topic, but I am dismayed by the militarization of our police force. I see it as a way for the government to exploit a loophole as a way to work around the Posse Comitatus Act. Back on topic: Plain clothes might be best, but I probably wouldn't object to standard police garb.
They need to be well trained for the anticipated threat scenario(s), but other than that I don't have strong feelings about which agency they should be drawn from.
All good points. I, too, prefer state level implementation. Where I live my local town controls the uniformed armed police officers in every school as administered by the local school district. So far it seems to work very well.
Even though I am prior military I also do not support armed guards in military uniform. For some reason uniformed police officers seem to convey "community". While armed military seems to convey "big brother is watching." Maybe that's just my perception though.
They must be very well trained. And, fully trusted. After all they are the only (I hope) armed presence in the school. Just think of the horror that could be inflicted before any backup officers could arrive.
One of my concerns with background checks is based on incomplete and inaccurate databases. The other is including non-violent felonies such as accounting fraud or drug possession preventing legitimate gun purchases or ownership. The first can be solved by creating an accurate national database with procedures that prevent mislabeling individuals and that allows mislabeled individuals to have their names easily removed and the second by only including violent criminals in the list.
Having the list include the mentally ill is a much greater problem. Does the psychiatric community and a definition of violent mental illness? How would the names of these individuals be determined without invading medical privacy? How would these people have their names removed if they were determined to be cured? Could they ever have their names removed from the list? Another point is it morally acceptable to remove a persons’ right to defend them because they are sick?
Until these questions are answered I would prefer to take the risk of dangerous people possibly buying firearms instead of the risk of wrongful refusal.
All of these concerns do not apply to criminals because they would never submit themselves to any kind of check. They are criminals and may be stupid but they are not that stupid.
Legitimate concern about mental health and privacy, particularly because of regulations like HIPAA. However, it would be irresponsible to the point of unethical to give someone with depression, antisocial personality disorder, or psychosis a firearm. The first is at risk for suicide, the second has no empathy and is therefore dangerous, the third cannot tell reality from fantasy and is also therefore dangerous.
However, anyone busted for drug possession should not have access to a firearm because a) they clearly have connections in the drug world which means they associate with other criminals, and b) even if it wasn't with intent to sell, sorry, no, we don't need more people doing stupid things with firearms while under the influence.
For me it was the 1986 Edmond, OK post office shooting (which I believe was the genesis of the pejorative phrase, "going postal"). Other shootings that stuck in my head was the shooting by that guy who defaulted on his car loan and the LIRR shooting in Garden City. (I was living in the NY area back then.) Since Columbine, there's been a whole bunch, including VA Tech, Ft Hood, Aurora, Newtown, Lancaster (at that Amish school). I also include the religiously-motivated shooting in a church of my faith in Knoxville TN, even though only two people died.
Way back around 15 pages ago, I answered Old Cold's question about what crimes would have been averted had the proposed legislation been in effect at the time. I named names, described the crimes, and described how the perpetrator's purchase could have been prevented. Usually it was people buying guns on the Internet. I also noted that there were no background checks at the gun show where the Columbine weapons were obtained.
Also, leave it up to the teachers if they want to be armed!
Hmmmmmm.... I have considered that before.
Here in Oklahoma a teacher would have to take 40 hours of classroom instruction. Then they would have to take firearm instruction (Different phases of the CLEET licensing procedure). It's the same instruction that Police Officers receive during their academy training.
Then, there is the cost of the license. The last I checked it is $50 for two years. And, now I believe that each CLEET certified licensed armed individual, while performing duties as an armed guard, are required to have either a $10k or $15k bond. I believe that would apply per teacher. Or, each school district might have to carry a bond that would cover all armed personnel.
Either way having armed teachers would cost a considerable amount of money to implement.
Here in Oklahoma a teacher would have to take 40 hours of classroom instruction. Then they would have to take firearm instruction (Different phases of the CLEET licensing procedure). It's the same instruction that Police Officers receive during their academy training.
Then, there is the cost of the license. The last I checked it is $50 for two years. And, now I believe that each CLEET certified licensed armed individual, while performing duties as an armed guard, are required to have either a $10k or $15k bond. I believe that would apply per teacher. Or, each school district might have to carry a bond that would cover all armed personnel.
Either way having armed teachers would cost a considerable amount of money to implement.
Each school system would be different....however, minus the bond (if nneded)....I would pay for the class my self, if the teacher wanted it, and pay the $20 fee for their CCP (first year).
Each school system would be different....however, minus the bond (if nneded)....I would pay for the class my self, if the teacher wanted it, and pay the $20 fee for their CCP (first year).
Agreed. That's why I said "Here in Oklahoma..." The CLEET licensing procedure would be the same for every school district in this state. Certainly not every school district in the country.
And, it's very possible that there would be citizens of each town who would collect donations to send teachers to the training. The only cost involvement of the school district would be the bond (if needed).
I don't recall the price of the three phases of CLEET training (required in Oklahoma before you can carry a firearm as a security guard, or as a Police Officer), but I would be willing to pay the two year license fee for one or two teachers if they pass the CLEET training.
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.
