Arm Everything!

[El Karacho1647545492]

I wish this to be a somewhat serious discussion. Completely disregarding the gun CONTROL debate, the alternate solution I am hearing a lot of is to have guns in schools, whether being wielded by teachers and administrators or hired security.

 

I'd like some questions answered by those who believe this is the solution, because I'm currently having a hard time wrapping my head around the argument:

 

1) Do you or have you ever held the belief that schools are over-funded, that teacher's unions are wrong, or that tax dollars are better spent elsewhere than paying for the best quality teachers for EVERYONE?

 

2) Do you feel that school faculty should have compulsory arms training in order to facilitate this? Do you think faculty should have a greater, less, or equal say than the average taxpayer/voter on this job requirement?

 

3) Do you feel that security at ALL schools should be paid for with tax dollars? If so, where should already-thin school budgets make concessions to make this possible?

 

4) Should hired security be from private firms or public servants such as police officers or national guardsmen, and to what extent? Is one person enough? 2? A whole squad? Should they be minimally armed and protected, or fully kitted out with automatic rifles and armor?

 

5) Should only faculty be allowed to carry weapons, or should properly trained 18 year old seniors be allowed to tote rifles and/or shotguns for personal protection?

 

I think my bias is somewhat obvious here, but I'm not trying to challenge your beliefs with this thread. I have a certain set of beliefs and I wish to be challenged on them, and to hear the reasoning for why I might be wrong.

 

 

EDIT: This thread isn't meant to generate stat-spam. I don't care about your wall of numbers why something ELSE is more dangerous than guns, or how properly wielded guns result in blah blah blah saved lives. This is more about the economics and social ramifications of having guns in schools. This is more about opinions that might conflict with my own so I (hopefully we?) can learn more.

[nurkvinny]

I would rather spend a couple hundred million here paying for dedicated security guards than handing the same amount over to Muslim Brotherhood countries such as Egypt. If someone fights that idea, pay for it by taking away .5% of the current entitlements.

 

The money is easy to find.

[Green Bastard]

My personal opinion is this:

 

If it were to happen that there was some form of security or teachers with ccw's there shouldn't be people walking around with rifles and such, it should be discreet so as to not make the student body nervous. Also students should not be able to carry to school (imho not mature enough to get into a fight or something and not use the weapon cause its available). Also, the taxes in the districts should be raised accordingly as needed to fund the security.

 

Now all this is if some sort of security is made to be manditory in schools, I don't necessarily agree with anything more than maybe 1 or 2 officers/security guards able to carry weapons in case something were to happen. I do agree however, with some of the rules in place at some schools already making it very hard to even get in (ie, you have to wait in a lobby for your child to be brought to you). While it may be a PITA, I'd rather the children be a bit safer.

[El Karacho1647545492]

The reason I asked #2 is because there is a possibilitiy that a large group of high-quality teachers would, given the requirement that there be some staffers who legally carry concealed weapons, potentially leave their jobs and as a result the quality of American education would suffer.

 

IMO most problems can be solved with very good education and critical thinking, and I think showing kids at an early age that guns are more welcome in schools than good educators is a VERY bad idea. It says to me that we must be paranoid, or fearful, perpetually vigilant, or whatever you want to call it. Again, this is hypothetical, but I don't think it's treading outside the realm of reality.

[10phone2]

I do believe that schools are way over funded. We as a country throw more and more money towards public education and we are falling more and more behind other countries. If people want a top notch education, knuckle up and send the kiddies to private school. Teachers pay should be tied into the performance of their students on standardized exams. I'm honestly tired of the discussion that teachers are under paid and they work long hours. They knowingly go into that profession knowing the pay and they get 1-3 months off a year. Must have been nice for the Chicago teachers to average $76k a year and still go on strike for low pay. If they don't like the pay, get a masters/doctorate and work at a university/community college on the side or full time.

 

I honestly am up in the air about armed security guards. At the end of the day, even if there are armed guards on campus, if one wants to kill a classroom then by the time the security gets there its too late. The classroom has been killed. If a nut job wants to kill, there isn't shit to stop them.

[RedRocket1647545505]

1. No

 

2. If the teacher feels so inclined to carry the responsibility of this, then by all means, allow them to help. Offer to send them to some sort of advanced training ($1,000/teacher).

 

3. I've always had sort of an internal dilemma when it comes to where the funding comes from for schools. Part of me (the part that doesn't have kids) wants to say, you had the kid, you should find a way to pay for it's education. The other part of me says, kids are the future and should be prepped as such. Short answers: probably tax dollars. Not sure where you should make the cuts, but as someone already said, I do not think it would be too terribly difficult to shift the funds from somewhere else. Hell, I just saw on the news yesterday where the US, once again, sent some ungodly amount of money to another nation for support. Stop this shit, and divert it to education funding.

 

4. Probably private security. Someone who's trained for just such scenarios. It's probably cheaper to do this than to send them to full blown cop school (or whatever they do). I also feel that one is enough. I had read somewhere that the individuals who perform these mass shootings love the feeling of control, and when confronted by even the slightest bit of opposition, tend to turn the gun on themselves. They aren't there to have a shoot-out with someone. They're looking for easy targets prior to ending their own life. I think moderately trained is sufficient due to this reason. Allow them to dress casual and carry concealed so as to not alarm or disturb the students. After all, we are still aiming for it to be as normal of an environment as possible for the kids. I would, however, keep some sort of heavy-hitter locked up in a specific location that they could have access too.

 

5. I probably would not allow the students to carry weapons, even if they are 18. They should be there for education, not to defend others. 18 is still pretty young to carry that responsibility.

 

 

 

I'm still not sure how I feel about the subject. I do not feel that it would be too much for a district to set aside $50,000/yr for the purpose of security. Install some serious locking doors and hire an armed security guard to roam the halls for $40,000/hr. To me, that does not seem like that much of a sacrifice to their budgets.

[Radio Flyer1647545514]

I think we could afford to pay one armed security guard at each school an average teacher salary. This one person should have the ability to hold off any threat until more authorities arrive.

[BStowers023]

#5 hell no.

[macpyro2]

How is #5 even considered.

[El Karacho1647545492]

How is #5 even considered.

 

I bet if you asked someone in 1987 (year I was born) if there should ever be armed security personnel at elementary schools, they would react the same way. Yet here we are...

 

That's why it's considered.

[macpyro2]

I bet if you asked someone in 1987 (year I was born) if there should ever be armed security personnel at elementary schools, they would react the same way. Yet here we are...

 

That's why it's considered.

 

Sorry I was referring to the students having weapons.

[BStowers023]

I bet if you asked someone in 1987 (year I was born) if there should ever be armed security personnel at elementary schools, they would react the same way. Yet here we are...

 

That's why it's considered.

 

I would NOT feel even relatively safe if I was a student and deemed "responsible" seniors were allowed to carry loaded weapons.

[El Karacho1647545492]

1. No

 

2. If the teacher feels so inclined to carry the responsibility of this, then by all means, allow them to help. Offer to send them to some sort of advanced training ($1,000/teacher).

 

3. I've always had sort of an internal dilemma when it comes to where the funding comes from for schools. Part of me (the part that doesn't have kids) wants to say, you had the kid, you should find a way to pay for it's education. The other part of me says, kids are the future and should be prepped as such. Short answers: probably tax dollars. Not sure where you should make the cuts, but as someone already said, I do not think it would be too terribly difficult to shift the funds from somewhere else. Hell, I just saw on the news yesterday where the US, once again, sent some ungodly amount of money to another nation for support. Stop this shit, and divert it to education funding.

 

4. Probably private security. Someone who's trained for just such scenarios. It's probably cheaper to do this than to send them to full blown cop school (or whatever they do). I also feel that one is enough. I had read somewhere that the individuals who perform these mass shootings love the feeling of control, and when confronted by even the slightest bit of opposition, tend to turn the gun on themselves. They aren't there to have a shoot-out with someone. They're looking for easy targets prior to ending their own life. I think moderately trained is sufficient due to this reason. Allow them to dress casual and carry concealed so as to not alarm or disturb the students. After all, we are still aiming for it to be as normal of an environment as possible for the kids. I would, however, keep some sort of heavy-hitter locked up in a specific location that they could have access too.

 

5. I probably would not allow the students to carry weapons, even if they are 18. They should be there for education, not to defend others. 18 is still pretty young to carry that responsibility.

 

 

 

I'm still not sure how I feel about the subject. I do not feel that it would be too much for a district to set aside $50,000/yr for the purpose of security. Install some serious locking doors and hire an armed security guard to roam the halls for $40,000/hr. To me, that does not seem like that much of a sacrifice to their budgets.

 

I like this response.

 

I will say, however, that your view on school budgeting is out of whack. You have schools cutting sports, arts, pretty much anything out of the budget they can not because of security, but because public education is one of the easiest things to squeeze in a recession. You're talking about a school district pulling $40,000/year (not unreasonable) PER school. Lets assume this is a very small school district with only a elementary, middle, and high school. That's $120k right there, and assuming it's small enough to only need 3 schools for all the students, there can't be THAT much tax revenue coming in. $120k is a lot for a school budget.

 

Also, an addendum to my original 5 questions:

 

6) Should schools be responsible for providing security on buses as well? Attempting to get in the deranged mind of a school shooter, I think to myself "well if an assault at the school will be curtailed by a security guard there, why not attack the school bus where there's 50 defenseless kids packed in a tiny area with minimal escape routes and a single adult who, even if armed, would be taken out easily by element of surprise?"

[El Karacho1647545492]

Sorry I was referring to the students having weapons.

 

I understand. What I'm saying is that 25 years ago, people would've scoffed at the idea of people bringing guns to school to keep kids safe, but we're having that debate right now.

 

Given that, is it so ridiculous to think we may have the debate on whether or not to arm students in 25 years? After all, the law says that a properly background-checked 18 year old is perfectly OK to own and fire a rifle or shotgun within local stipulations. I agree it's a completely ridiculous concept, but I'm sure there are many people in this country who would feel much more at ease if their 18 year old son or daughter were able to defend him/herself from a school shooter rather than relying on security provided by the government.

[El Karacho1647545492]

Thank you all for your responses so far, I'm already dismantling some of my own opinions and coming up with new ideas and challenges to think about.

 

because triple post.

[CRed05]

Well I think we can all agree that #5 is a turrrble idea.

 

I was just reading that Indiana already allows teachers to bring guns to work.

[El Karacho1647545492]

Well I think we can all agree that #5 is a turrrble idea.

 

I was just reading that Indiana already allows teachers to bring guns to work.

 

Lots of individual districts do, the national debate is "is it a viable way to increase security at school".

 

I have no problem with teachers bringing guns to school. I have an issue with the security mandate being put upon educators. We already have enough issues with police judgement in using their firearms, asking teachers to put themselves in similar situations is asking too much IMO. I also think that it puts student lives in danger if a particularly gung-ho educator who exercises his rights feels it is his/her duty to provide security in an instance where it may not be right.

[ForeverMaker]

food for thought regarding 4....

 

Max Silvestri ‏@maxsilvestri

 

There were two armed guards at Columbine so it's weird the NRA didn't bring those guys up on stage to talk about how well that went.

 

Retweeted by Patton Oswalt

[El Karacho1647545492]

All in all I think this presser the NRA had this morning will do infinitely more harm than good. I think most law abiding gun owners disagree with the stance taken by the NRA, and it will have a backlash [unfortunately] greater than the message it attempted to send.

[RedRocket1647545505]

All in all I think this presser the NRA had this morning will do infinitely more harm than good. I think most law abiding gun owners disagree with the stance taken by the NRA, and it will have a backlash [unfortunately] greater than the message it attempted to send.

 

I'm not sure I see it that way. I particularly like their point on adding 1 more law to the countless that we already have that are ineffective. I like that they addressed additional issues in this country and the fact that we protect everything else, but our schools. I think if congress is so concerned with protecting the children, that they should donate their security personnel to major districts of the nation. What makes them feel as though they deserve personal security whereas the children of this nation do not?

[jjjxlr8]

All in all I think this presser the NRA had this morning will do infinitely more harm than good. I think most law abiding gun owners disagree with the stance taken by the NRA, and it will have a backlash [unfortunately] greater than the message it attempted to send.

 

What better solution is there? Armed security seems like the most practical solution that can be implemented quickly.

 

Banning "assault weapons" and "assault clips" surely won't help prevent murderers from committing horrific acts.

[El Karacho1647545492]

I'm not sure I see it that way. I particularly like their point on adding 1 more law to the countless that we already have that are ineffective. I like that they addressed additional issues in this country and the fact that we protect everything else, but our schools. I think if congress is so concerned with protecting the children, that they should donate their security personnel to major districts of the nation. What makes them feel as though they deserve personal security whereas the children of this nation do not?

 

It's important to remember that prior to this tragedy, gun control was still a somewhat untouchable subject. Now it's on the table and while we who believe in the 2nd Amendment accuse the gun control advocates of rushing to judgement, it's important to look in the mirror and think maybe this NRA clown is doing exactly that. To me, this guy got up and showed me that the NRA doesn't stand for what I believe in. I'm trying to open my mind to other opinions which is the purpose of this thread, but I feel conflicted because I see the effect of this on people like my own mother, who burst into tears at the thought of losing me and my sister in such a way. What should I do to comfort her? Hand her my Makarov and say "Mom take this, it'll make you feel better"? I think she is representative of more Americans than we realize (fiscally extremely conservative, socially liberal), and I don't think that's the way to talk to her at this point.

 

What would I have wanted? I would have told him to get up to the mic and say "This is a national tragedy and it would be inappropriate for the NRA to suggest action publicly, but we look forward to working diligently with lawmakers to make schools safer while protecting Americans' 2nd Amendment rights. Thank you and good night." Instead we got some political grandstanding that, in effect, condemned political grandstanding.

 

I'm a proud gun owner and I do think it is my right to own guns, but I still sit at home and wonder what sacrifice I could make to prevent this from happening in the future. Would it kill me to have mandatory gun safes? Would I suffer undue hardship if I had to pass a more thorough background check? I have yet to know what conclusion I may reach but I think it's still inappropriate to suggest action while victims of this tragedy have yet to be buried.

[V8 Beast]

I would NOT feel even relatively safe if I was a student and deemed "responsible" seniors were allowed to carry loaded weapons.

 

How would you feel about a teacher carrying one if the teacher was 22 years old? That would be 3 years older than a 19 year old senior.

[Scotty2Hotty]

Privately trained security is always a good idea. Most private companies have access to training well beyond the common LEO, in most cases. Are we talking about mall type security, Loomis, or the average sit at the desk and watch a monitor type? No. If we have trusted private contracted security to guard our Embassies abroad, on top of our diplomats, why would we not do the same for our country.

 

Security in schools should have been addressed many moons ago. After the Oklahoma City bombing, guess what happened? Security barriers, blast proofing Federal buildings (windows and structures in general), higher security monitoring and the whole 9 yards. Why? We wanted to protect those inside a possible target. It's sick that someone would even visualize a school as a target, but it's a big one. From random crazies, to the most brazen of terrorists, the children of this country are vulnerable targets. Where are kids usually found in mass quantities? Schools.

 

Proactive security is a great start. Actively engaging a potential threat would significantly reduce the chance of human loss or casualty. Does that mean shoot first and ask later? Hell no. Experienced personnel would only help promote a safer environment, not take away.

[BStowers023]

How would you feel about a teacher carrying one if the teacher was 22 years old? That would be 3 years older than a 19 year old senior.

 

#1 a 19 year old senior :dumb:

 

#2 are you making the assumption that I think it's a good idea to arm teachers?

 

#3 do you think it's a good idea to arm high school students?