View Full Version : Take the guns out of schools? Nope, put more in.
nightwng2000
10-06-2006, 01:34 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15142930/
Yeah, that'll work. :rolleyes:
Thefremen
10-06-2006, 02:00 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15142930/
Yeah, that'll work. :rolleyes:
Can you imagine how much more disciplined kids will be?
Teacher: Now, after that gunfight with the cheerleader who just wouldn't shut up, I'm not quite sure if I have any ammo left in this .44 magnum. You've just gotta ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?'. Well, do ya, punk?
kid: Jeez Mr. M I won't pass notes in class no more. @_@
..I'd become a teacher if they were issued guns. Or at least whips and cattle prods.
Then again, I'd become a teacher anyway if I was offered a position at a Japanese high school ;p
nightwng2000
10-06-2006, 02:21 PM
Can you imagine how much more disciplined kids will be?
Teacher: Now, after that gunfight with the cheerleader who just wouldn't shut up, I'm not quite sure if I have any ammo left in this .44 magnum. You've just gotta ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?'. Well, do ya, punk?
kid: Jeez Mr. M I won't pass notes in class no more. @_@
Teacher: Go ahead... Make My Grade.
wxDiva
10-06-2006, 02:52 PM
I heard about this on CNN yesterday. They brought up a good point: If little Timmy knows the principal has a gun, he'll likely shoot first and ask questions later. You know what this means? We need to give the teachers and administrators rocket launchers instead. Just aim it at the bus and the kids won't be a problem anymore. [/sarcasm]
Grahamr
10-06-2006, 03:09 PM
What's next,Battle royale?
*Cut to U.S high school*
Kitano:So,in other words,the integer of-
Girl:heheh,yeah,really?
Kitano:I SAID NO WHISPERING! *Bang!*
Back on subject,whos to say teachers won't go on rampages? our laws are overly protective of teachers,some principals could even be rapists. and the last thing we need is rapists with guns around children.
beemoh
10-06-2006, 03:10 PM
Then again, I'd become a teacher anyway if I was offered a position at a Japanese high school ;p
...providing your own whip, I assume? ;P
BetaSword
10-06-2006, 04:00 PM
Kitano:I SAID NO WHISPERING! *Bang!*
It wouldn't be a *bang*, but more a *thwack!* as the knife sticks her in the head :)
But on subject...
This has got to be... Quite possibly... The STUPIDEST idea I've heard in a very long time. I mean, seriously. This guy sites other countries as his reasoning as to why it would work here. Obviously he hasn't seen any schools where the teachers are just as bad as the students. I even know of a few teachers from my school that most likely would've gone off on killing sprees if this was allowed...
What does this guy want? Less school shootings by students (and random people), and more from the actual teachers?
Idiot...
Garbage Pail Kid
10-06-2006, 04:26 PM
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! HELL NO!!!!!1111oneeleventybilliondollarstexaswitha$sig n
This is the worst idea I've heard since........**** it, this the worst idea ever! Let's look at the qualifications to be a teacher, shall we:
Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree
Major in Education
I didn't see extensive background screening anywhere in there. Did you? What if the teacher has an anger management problem? My fifth/sixth math teacher threw a student across the room once. Imagine what would've happened if he had a gun. Plus, pedophiles sometimes take jobs as teachers to get closer to their prey. It's been documented. Students who are victims of abuse (of any kind, not just sexual) are often afraid to report it. Imagine what this would do.
If you're worried about school shootings, hire police officers who are trained to use and handle firearms and who do go through extensive background screening to be guards in the schools.
In Israel, teachers are not allowed to carry weapons in the school, but security guards at the entrances are armed.
There you go.
Seriously, what kind of crack is this congressman smoking? Hang out with Marion Berry much? ::has an aneurysm::
Grahamr
10-06-2006, 05:29 PM
If this congressman gets this through,Teachers are going to kill all of their students.
...providing your own whip, I assume? ;P
Well, if the girls want to get kinky >.> <.<
kurisu7885
10-06-2006, 06:05 PM
Talk about writing a death sentence. Teachers go through alot of stress, and I can imagine bullying gettign worse, since, as we all know "boys will be boys."
Also, I can see the pedo thing happening. A teacher coudl very easily use a gun to rape a student, and since there's the threat of being shot, it coudl go unreported.
Why don't they just get rid of school altogether? It'll really boost the Republican base!
MisterS
10-06-2006, 10:54 PM
damn teachers, damn crazies, and damn idiots who want attention by citing the bible as their source for idiocy!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
illspirit
10-07-2006, 02:44 AM
It worked for Israel. Don't take my (or an American politrick's) word for it though. Read what an IDF instructor who helped come up with the policy had to say about it. Clicky (http://www.jpfo.org/school.htm). He said this nearly a decade ago about our "gun free" school zones.
So you do not have to be a prophet to foresee, that we will see more school-shooting incidents in the U.S
Or as Alan Gottlieb from the CCRKBA said today (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/15694126.htm)(*edit-reg required after I posted):
School massacres didn't happen in the days when high schools had rifle teams, and when it was common in the fall to find both teachers and students with rifles or shotguns locked in their cars. That was before "gun" became a four-letter word among self-described "progressive liberals" who championed gun-free zones.
If what's happening at schools today is "progress," we might be better off -- and a lot of students would still be alive -- if we were back in those unenlightened days when school kids riding down country roads with .22 rifles across their bicycle handlebars alarmed nobody.
Or, hey, what about the UK you ask? It's one big "gun free" zone, right? Well, looky what we have here. This new article says kids in the UK are buying pistols and submachine guns cheaper than I can buy them here. Clicky (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29389-2390854,00.html).
I know a 13-year-old who carries. He bought an 8mm pistol for £80. The Mac-10s and the machine pistols are only for the big boys.
I'm guessing he's talking about the Walther PPK mentioned a few lines up? Which would go for two or three times that price here; even for a used one at a gun show. If even one of those MACs is full auto (and why bother with semi if it's totally illegal either way), one kid could probably outdo all the US school shooings combined in one attack...
Why is it that most of you just assume that if a teacher was armed, he or she would immediately snap and start mowing down students?
If the population of public school teachers is similar to the public at large, (and I'm going to assume it is), about 30% of them already own firearms. What has kept them from bringing in those weapons and using them?
Why hasn't that same factor stopped the other people (some of whom don't even have a legitimate reason to be at the school in the first place) from bringing their weapons to the schools?
How do you justify your belief that it is better to wait several minutes for the police to arrive, allowing more people to die, than it is to have highly trained (possibly better trained than the police) people already at the location, ready to handle the situation quickly?
Cecil475
10-07-2006, 01:48 PM
Teacher: Go ahead... Make My Grade.
LOL!
- Warren Lewis
Garbage Pail Kid
10-07-2006, 02:38 PM
How do you justify your belief that it is better to wait several minutes for the police to arrive, allowing more people to die, than it is to have highly trained (possibly better trained than the police) people already at the location, ready to handle the situation quickly?
I don't. I said we should have police officers in the schools, guarding them. My high school had a couple of school police officers in it.
..I'd become a teacher if they were issued guns.
I thought you hated guns.
Thefremen
10-07-2006, 02:40 PM
Why is it that most of you just assume that if a teacher was armed, he or she would immediately snap and start mowing down students?
If the population of public school teachers is similar to the public at large, (and I'm going to assume it is), about 30% of them already own firearms. What has kept them from bringing in those weapons and using them?
Why hasn't that same factor stopped the other people (some of whom don't even have a legitimate reason to be at the school in the first place) from bringing their weapons to the schools?
How do you justify your belief that it is better to wait several minutes for the police to arrive, allowing more people to die, than it is to have highly trained (possibly better trained than the police) people already at the location, ready to handle the situation quickly?
Most of the 30% of people who own firearms use them responsibly.
Anyways, neither here nor there. Problem with firearms is that they're a very democratic weapon. Used at very close range, just about anyone can use it to kill. Many students would probably have no problem taking a gun from a teacher, especially Mrs. Jones the 70 year old biology teacher.
I mean, remember the kid in Alabama (well, adult) who killed the cops and JT blamed it on GTA? Well, he got the gun from a cop. They're trained to protect their firearms but it still happens.
I personally think the best solution is to hire Ninja as teacher. Ninja can hide in plain sight and flip out and kill crazed gun weilding maniacs at a moment's notice.
Most of the 30% of people who own firearms use them responsibly.
Yet you seem to be saying none of the teachers would use them responsibly.
Anyways, neither here nor there. Problem with firearms is that they're a very democratic weapon. Used at very close range, just about anyone can use it to kill. Many students would probably have no problem taking a gun from a teacher, especially Mrs. Jones the 70 year old biology teacher.
Which is why Mrs. Jones would not be one of the teachers allowed to have weapons at school.
I mean, remember the kid in Alabama (well, adult) who killed the cops and JT blamed it on GTA? Well, he got the gun from a cop. They're trained to protect their firearms but it still happens.
The police are trained for any situation that they could possibly come across in their work with the public. As a result, their training for any one specific situation is not as good as it would be if they trained for just that one situation. The teachers would be trained to specifically handle the situations that could arise in the school. As a result, their training for those situations would be better that the police.
I thought you hated guns.
Only when I'm not the only one using them ;)
nightwng2000
10-07-2006, 05:37 PM
Intercom: Code white! Code white in Ms. Jones's room! Coach McCoy! Bring your double barrel! And Dirty Harriette in Science class, bring your Magnum! Has anybody seen the tear gas?!
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Garbage Pail Kid
10-07-2006, 07:42 PM
Yet you seem to be saying none of the teachers would use them responsibly.
No, that isn't what we're saying. We're saying that there would be some cases where they would abuse their power, and one is too many. Police officers are less likely to do so because of the extensive background screenings and psychological evaluations they have to go through to become cops in the first place. Plus, police officers usually operate in groups of two or more. You're less likely to do something when you know someone else who is just as heavily armed as you are is watching you.
Which is why Mrs. Jones would not be one of the teachers allowed to have weapons at school.
It wouldn't matter. Even if you only gave them physically capable teachers, there's still a good chance that Coach Smith, the 6' 180 lb. gym teacher, could get his gun jacked by Brian, the 6'2 230 lb. psychopath student.
The police are trained for any situation that they could possibly come across in their work with the public. As a result, their training for any one specific situation is not as good as it would be if they trained for just that one situation. The teachers would be trained to specifically handle the situations that could arise in the school. As a result, their training for those situations would be better that the police.
Not true. Police officers' crosstraining for different crises makes them more, not less, effective in any given situation. Their hand-to-hand training would aid them in disarming a hostile person at close range, their non-lethal weapons training would help if that failed, and their training with firearms would make them effective in situations where lethal force is called for. Any number of things could happen in a school shooting situation, and police officers would be prepared for most, if not all, of them.
Also, cops consistently train at places like the shooting range to keep their skills sharp. When teachers are not teaching, they are doing things like grading papers, planning course schedules, writing powerpoints, etc. Teachers do not have time to go through the training it takes to be able to handle a weapon effectively in a high stress, potentially lethal situation. A short course in weapons training for teachers (which is what it would be) would not be even close to enough to prepare them for a shooting.
No, that isn't what we're saying. We're saying that there would be some cases where they would abuse their power, and one is too many. Police officers are less likely to do so because of the extensive background screenings and psychological evaluations they have to go through to become cops in the first place.
Why are you assuming that the teachers who are chosen to carry handguns will not be as extensively screened? The majority of that would already be done just to get the Concealed Carry Permit that they would all need.
Plus, police officers usually operate in groups of two or more. You're less likely to do something when you know someone else who is just as heavily armed as you are is watching you.
I agree, we should have heavily armed teachers watching the students to make sure none of them pulls a gun.
It wouldn't matter. Even if you only gave them physically capable teachers, there's still a good chance that Coach Smith, the 6' 180 lb. gym teacher, could get his gun jacked by Brian, the 6'2 230 lb. psychopath student.
You're assuming Brian knows that Coach Smith has a weapon. There is no reason he should know that.
Have a small group of teachers who are chosen to have weapons. Of those, a small group of them actually carries on any given day. The ones who are carrying changes every day, with no pattern. The ones who are carrying carry concealed. (It is possible to conceal a handgun without any tell-tale bulges in your clothing, because I know that was going to be somebody's next argument.) None of the students or visitors know which teachers are "packing" at any given time, they just know that some of them are.
Not true. Police officers' crosstraining for different crises makes them more, not less, effective in any given situation. Their hand-to-hand training would aid them in disarming a hostile person at close range, their non-lethal weapons training would help if that failed, and their training with firearms would make them effective in situations where lethal force is called for. Any number of things could happen in a school shooting situation, and police officers would be prepared for most, if not all, of them.
And why would the fully trained teachers not be better prepared? The teachers would be prepared for any situation that could arise in the school. That would include training in hand-to-hand combat as well as non-lethal weapons training and firearms training. In fact, it would probably be the same people training the teachers as are training the police officers. And the teachers wouldn't need to know how to respond to a domestic violence call or how to serve a search warrant, so the time spent training those things could be spent getting more training in the things they needed.
Also, cops consistently train at places like the shooting range to keep their skills sharp.
I have yet to see any signs at any firing range I've ever been to that prohibits teachers from using them.
When teachers are not teaching, they are doing things like grading papers, planning course schedules, writing powerpoints, etc. Teachers do not have time to go through the training it takes to be able to handle a weapon effectively in a high stress, potentially lethal situation.
I'm fully aware of all the work teachers do. Although I find many of them spend most of their summer gardening. I'm sure they could find some time in that three month stretch (between the training seminars they go to) to stick in a firearms training course.
A short course in weapons training for teachers (which is what it would be) would not be even close to enough to prepare them for a shooting.
Why do you assume it would be a short course? Most teachers that I've known have plenty of time over the summer to complete their training.
......keep Beej away from guns
Garbage Pail Kid
10-07-2006, 09:52 PM
Why do you assume it would be a short course? Most teachers that I've known have plenty of time over the summer to complete their training.
Money.
Why are you assuming that the teachers who are chosen to carry handguns will not be as extensively screened? The majority of that would already be done just to get the Concealed Carry Permit that they would all need.
Money, again. Look, some schools can't even afford decent textbooks, so how are they going to pay for extensive, in-depth weapons courses and investigations and psychological evualations. Where are they going to get the money from, the government? The same government that's fighting an expensive war and has a $1 trillion+ debt?
I have yet to see any signs at any firing range I've ever been to that prohibits teachers from using them.
That isn't what I ment. Police officers are required to hone their skills as part of their job.
I agree, we should have heavily armed teachers watching the students to make sure none of them pulls a gun.
Once again, that's not what I said. I ment that a crooked cop is less likely to commit an abuse of power if he is with a partner.
I'm fully aware of all the work teachers do. Although I find many of them spend most of their summer gardening. I'm sure they could find some time in that three month stretch (between the training seminars they go to) to stick in a firearms training course.
Infantry One Station Unit Training takes thirteen to fifteen weeks where you do nothing but train for combat. Even after that, you ideally want spend some time doing training exercises with your unit before you go into a hostile situation. A teacher does not have adequate time for the physical, mental, and technical conditioning it takes to enter a confrontation with a heavily armed assailant. In case you'd like to know my source, it's personal experience. I used to be a paratrooper.
And why would the fully trained teachers not be better prepared? The teachers would be prepared for any situation that could arise in the school. That would include training in hand-to-hand combat as well as non-lethal weapons training and firearms training. In fact, it would probably be the same people training the teachers as are training the police officers. And the teachers wouldn't need to know how to respond to a domestic violence call or how to serve a search warrant, so the time spent training those things could be spent getting more training in the things they needed.
With every post you make, it becomes more and more apparent that you're suggesting that some teachers should no longer be just teachers, but teachers/security guards. Teachers are busy people, so why lay a whole new job on them? The schools should either hire trained security guards (if they can afford them) or use police. Police are good at combatives because that's all they do. Yes, that includes a lot of stuff, but it is all focused in one area. Teaching and combat are two completely different things. Using your own logic, a teacher/security guard would be less effective than just a security guard because one kind of training/preparation would take away from the other.
......keep Beej away from guns
Sorry, as a U.S. citizen, and member of the militia, (yes I know, that's redundant), the Second Amendment guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. I choose to practice that right (in a responsible manner).
No, I'm not trying to turn this into a Second Amendment thread, we've already been through that.
Sorry, as a U.S. citizen, and member of the militia, (yes I know, that's redundant), the Second Amendment guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. I choose to practice that right (in a responsible manner).
No, I'm not trying to turn this into a Second Amendment thread, we've already been through that.
*click click add to ignore list click click*
BearDogg-X
10-07-2006, 10:07 PM
Jesse Ventura, in his book "Do I Stand Alone?", suggested having "a single well-trained guy posted at every school, who could pose as a janitor. Only the principal and maybe the vice-principals would know what he was really there for. He'd wear an ankle holster; he'd be packing heat, but every day he'd be there pushing the broom, just doing what janitors do. But he'd be there, already in place, if anything went down. That way, you'd have at least one person there who could shoot back. Do you think (Klebold and Harris) would have been shooting if they thought somebody was going to shoot back? No way."
Thefremen
10-07-2006, 10:08 PM
Yet you seem to be saying none of the teachers would use them responsibly.
I don't know who you think I am, but I am the mother****ing fremen, mother****er, and don't you forget it! I said that a teacher who thinks he's Dirty Harry would be pretty funny. If you care to disagree that's fine but please leave the hyperbole in jokes because it isn't funny when hyperbole is used in debates.
The police are trained for any situation that they could possibly come across in their work with the public. As a result, their training for any one specific situation is not as good as it would be if they trained for just that one situation. The teachers would be trained to specifically handle the situations that could arise in the school. As a result, their training for those situations would be better that the police.
Maybe my example wasn't the best, but what if they left their gun in a place where someone could get to it? It happens with their test answer sheets.
I dunno, I just think the only real solution is to have cops on campus. There was a cop on my campus and it did wonders to discourage people from shooting each other or selling drugs. The best way to go would be Metal Gears though. Of course, they'd have to wear giant gold medallions so they could be "Solid". Can you dig it?
Jesse Ventura, in his book "Do I Stand Alone?", suggested having "a single well-trained guy posted at every school, who could pose as a janitor. Only the principal and maybe the vice-principals would know what he was really there for. He'd wear an ankle holster; he'd be packing heat, but every day he'd be there pushing the broom, just doing what janitors do. But he'd be there, already in place, if anything went down. That way, you'd have at least one person there who could shoot back. Do you think (Klebold and Harris) would have been shooting if they thought somebody was going to shoot back? No way."
Considering they commited suicide anyway, do you think they would've cared if they were killed by someone else's bullets?
Thefremen
10-07-2006, 10:35 PM
Considering they commited suicide anyway, do you think they would've cared if they were killed by someone else's bullets?
Yes. On their bullets they had carved little butterfly wings on them as a tribute to smashing pumpkins. Other people's bullets had no such thing.
Yes. On their bullets they had carved little butterfly wings on them as a tribute to smashing pumpkins. Other people's bullets had no such thing.
You've gotta appreciate craft work like that.
Money, again. Look, some school can't even afford decent textbooks, so how are they going to pay for extensive, in-depth weapons courses and investigations and psychological evualations. Where are they going to get the money from, the government? The same government that's fighting an expensive war and has a $1 trillion+ debt?
No, not that government, the other one. The one that pays the police officers. the one that would be paying the security guards you suggested to go through the same training. The same one that is currently paying the teachers. You know, the Local Government.
That isn't what I ment. Police officers are required to hone their skills as part of their job.
Just as it would be part of the teachers job to hone their skills.
Once again, that's not what I said. I ment that a crooked cop is less likely to commit an abuse of power if he is with a partner.
Either way.
Infantry One Station Unit Training takes thirteen to fifteen weeks where you do nothing but train for combat. Even after that, you ideally want spend some time doing training exercises with your unit before you go into a hostile situation. A teacher does not have adequate time for the physical, mental, and technical conditioning it takes to enter a confrontation with a heavily armed assailant. In case you'd like to know my source, it's personal experience. I used to be a paratrooper.
Remind me to ask my brother (who actually completed the training to be a police officer) how he managed to complete 15 weeks of training in less than 2 months.
The training the military goes through, and the training a police officer goes through, are two completely different things. At the Police Academy, (where police officers get all of their training), it takes them about 2 months to learn everything they need to know to become a police officer. That includes all Combat and Firearms training, as well as learning all of the laws that they are going to be required to enforce, among other things. The teachers, since they don't need to learn about any of the laws, could certainly complete all of their Combat and Firearms training in a month.
With every post you make, it becomes more and more apparent that you're suggesting that some teachers should no longer be just teachers, but teachers/security guards.
It took you this long? In my second post I gave my opinion that some teachers should be carrying firearms.
Teachers are busy people, so why lay a whole new job on them? The schools should either hire trained security guards (if they can afford them) or use police. Police are good at combatives because that's all they do. Yes, that includes a lot of stuff, but it is all focused in one area. Teaching and combat are two completely different things. Using your own logic, a teacher/security guard would be less effective than just a security guard because one kind of training/preparation would take away from the other.
True, during the school year teacher can be very busy. That's why they would train over the summer.
I think we need to have someone armed on location in case something happens. That way, the situation can be taken care of before 20 people get killed. You seem to agree with me on this point, but I could be wrong.
My problem with the police is they take too long to get there. By the time a call gets made, and the police drive to the school, people have already died.
As far as the security guards you suggest, it's a good start. But the schools, in an attempt to save money, will probably hire the same ineffective, untrained rent-a-cops they use at the mall. Even if they actually use trained security, they will probably just hire a few to watch the doors. Then when a student in a classroom pulls a gun, the entire class is dead before the guard gets there. Because the kid knows the guard is there, so he better work fast.
Of course they school could actually train the guards and put one (or two, to make sure neither one is "crooked") in each classroom to prevent this from happening. That gets a guard in every classroom, but would tend to get expensive.
And any time you use guards, the students know where the guns are, and Brian the 6'2 230 lb. psychopath student can jump them and take their guns.
Or, you can put several teachers through the exact same training, and use the plan I gave earlier. The schools only have to pay to train a small number of teachers (who can get the training during the summer when they're not busy), and nobody knows where the guns are. And you still have armed people on site who are trained to handle the situation.
Garbage Pail Kid
10-07-2006, 10:46 PM
Explain to me why you think a teacher doubling as a security guard would be more effective than a trained security guard disguised as a school official.
pixelante_ninja
10-07-2006, 10:57 PM
I think the most rational and effective idea is the security gaurd disguised as a janitor idea. He/She can get a large amount of training, they can do thorough background checks since it'll only be 1 or 2 gaurds per school, and the students have no idea, of course once this measure is used once, the students will suspect that it'll happen again, but they won't be sure.
Explain to me why you think a teacher doubling as a security guard would be more effective than a trained security guard disguised as a school official.
I don't think that. I think that several trained teachers in the classrooms would be more effective than a single (or even a few) security guards outside the classroom.
Thefremen
10-07-2006, 11:11 PM
Explain to me why a ninja disquised as a policeman disquised as a school official disquised as a tree wouldn't be more effective.
Garbage Pail Kid
10-07-2006, 11:23 PM
I don't think that. I think that several trained teachers in the classrooms would be more effective than a single (or even a few) security guards outside the classroom.
Where are you getting that number difference from? I was making a comparison on a one to one basis. One guard in disguise is more effective than one teacher/guard, so several disguised guards would be more effective than several teacher/guards.
My point is this: A disguised guard has one job, and only one to worry about. He can devote all of his available time to preparing and performing that single job. A teacher/guard has two jobs, both of which are time-consuming and high stress, so his/her effectiveness at both jobs would suffer. If an undercover police officer was used, his/her training and preparation for his/her regular job would cross over to providing safety at schools.
I don't know who you think I am, but I am the mother****ing fremen, mother****er, and don't you forget it!
Honestly, I don't care who you think you are. :)
I said that a teacher who thinks he's Dirty Harry would be pretty funny. If you care to disagree that's fine but please leave the hyperbole in jokes because it isn't funny when hyperbole is used in debates.
Actually you said:
Most of the 30% of people who own firearms use them responsibly.
Yet you appear to arguing against letting teachers carry guns because they might use them irresponsibly.
Like here:
Maybe my example wasn't the best, but what if they left their gun in a place where someone could get to it?
I apologize if I mistakenly interpreted the fact that you stated you thought the teachers couldn't be responsible with their guns as you stating that you thought the teachers couldn't be responsible with their guns.
I don't know how I could've possibly mis-interpretted that.:confused:
I dunno, I just think the only real solution is to have cops on campus. There was a cop on my campus and it did wonders to discourage people from shooting each other or selling drugs.
And my school didn't have any cops or security guards, yet nobody ever shot each other, and to my knowledge, nobody was selling drugs, (but there was that one time with the pipe bomb in the boys room). So it's not necessarily the presence of the cops that caused the lack of trouble.
Maybe having cops/guards there will help. Maybe having armed teachers will help. Maybe not allowing weapons anywhere near the school is the best way to go. Or maybe a different tactic will work at each school. I don't claim to know, I just think my plan works best.
Explain to me why a ninja disquised as a policeman disquised as a school official disquised as a tree wouldn't be more effective.
People would see the tree walking down the hallway and get suspicious.
pixelante_ninja
10-07-2006, 11:45 PM
It's been said before but I'll say it again, it only takes one time, just like school shootings the chances of a teacher going postal with that gun or someone getting the gun from the teacher are slim and probaly wouldn't happen very often. However like school shootings by students, the effects would be disastorous and it seems to me like this would make schools less safe then they are now.
Garbage Pail Kid
10-07-2006, 11:54 PM
^There it is.^
I would never send my child to a school where teachers carry guns, and if it became a country thin for teachers to carry guns, I would move to England. I like living here, but if it came to keeping gun carrying teachers away from my kids, I would move.
It's been said before but I'll say it again, it only takes one time, just like school shootings the chances of a teacher going postal with that gun or someone getting the gun from the teacher are slim and probaly wouldn't happen very often. However like school shootings by students, the effects would be disastorous and it seems to me like this would make schools less safe then they are now.
Replace "teacher" with "security guard" are you're statement remains just as valid. The difference is, everyone knows the security guard has a gun.
Garbage Pail Kid
10-08-2006, 12:13 AM
Beej, you never answered my last question. Post #39
jdmdsp911
10-08-2006, 12:17 AM
Our school district here has it's own group of security guards. They are all police officers from the part time departments in the county. The local college also has it's own police department. The only problem is that neither department is not allowed to carry guns on their person in their normal duties. The President of the College and the School Board members have stated that they don't want the officers carrying weapons because they don't want the students to feel like they are in a prison. They stay in the office for when they are needed.
kurisu7885
10-08-2006, 12:19 AM
Our school district here has it's own group of security guards. They are all police officers from the part time departments in the county. The local college also has it's own police department. The only problem is that neither department is not allowed to carry guns on their person in their normal duties. The President of the College and the School Board members have stated that they don't want the officers carrying weapons because they don't want the students to feel like they are in a prison. They stay in the office for when they are needed.
Nice argument, why have the police make it feel like a prison rather than just have the school building itself do it?:D
Garbage Pail Kid
10-08-2006, 12:23 AM
Our school district here has it's own group of security guards. They are all police officers from the part time departments in the county. The local college also has it's own police department. The only problem is that neither department is not allowed to carry guns on their person in their normal duties. The President of the College and the School Board members have stated that they don't want the officers carrying weapons because they don't want the students to feel like they are in a prison. They stay in the office for when they are needed.
That's probably the best solution.
^There it is.^
I would never send my child to a school where teachers carry guns, and if it became a country thin for teachers to carry guns, I would move to England. I like living here, but if it came to keeping gun carrying teachers away from my kids, I would move.
Why does everyone forget Canada...
Where are you getting that number difference from? I was making a comparison on a one to one basis. One guard in disguise is more effective than one teacher/guard, so several disguised guards would be more effective than several teacher/guards.
My point is this: A disguised guard has one job, and only one to worry about. He can devote all of his available time to preparing and performing that single job. A teacher/guard has two jobs, both of which are time-consuming and high stress, so his/her effectiveness at both jobs would suffer. If an undercover police officer was used, his/her training and preparation for his/her regular job would cross over to providing safety at schools.
The problem with a disguised guard is this:
The only way it would work is if nobody (except faculty/staff) knew it was a disguised guard. If the students knew there was a disguised guard, it would be relatively easy to figure out which one it was. (The one who wasn't at the school last year.) If the community at large knew there was a disguised guard, the one crazy guy who comes in with a gun is going to just shoot any adult he sees in case that is the guard. At the very least he would shoot all of the janitors.
So telling the community could possibly make things worse. But not telling could be a real problem as well.
If word ever got out that there was a "janitor" walking around school with a gun, the community would go nuts. It would be political and career suicide for everyone from the Principal all the way up to the Governor. No politician would ever put themselves in that position.
The other problem I see is that it doesn't put weapons in the classrooms where I feel they would be needed.
But you have convinced me of one thing. It would be a good idea to have armed people at other places around the school. My original plan didn't work as well protecting against the people coming in from outside the school. So I think the best thing is to arm some office staff/janitors/groundskeepers as well as some teachers, using the same system as with the teachers, so nobody knows which ones are armed on any given day. Perhaps disguised security guards would work for these.
One question before I finish. What is the difference between a security guard disguised as a janitor, who would have to spend the majority of his time actually doing janitorial duties, and a janitor who has been trained as a security guard (going through the same training as the guard would have)?
illspirit
10-08-2006, 01:06 AM
No, that isn't what we're saying. We're saying that there would be some cases where they would abuse their power, and one is too many. Police officers are less likely to do so because of the extensive background screenings and psychological evaluations they have to go through to become cops in the first place.
Not true at all. You are statistically more likely to come across a "cowboy" cop given the very nature of the job. That badge and power are like a magnet for ex-jocks and such who want to assert their superiority complex onto others. Most cops aren't like this, mind you, but most will tell you they've known at least one asshat like this.
Also, cops consistently train at places like the shooting range to keep their skills sharp.
Oh really? Lots of cops are only required to practice a couple of times a year. Others, especially in quiet suburban areas where these shootings tend to occur, never have to practice again after qualifying. City budgets don't always allow tons of lead to be thrown downrange every year.
On the other hand, I, not being a cop, goto the range weekly. And if schools would allow teachers who already have CCW permits to carry, plenty of them will practice just as much.
t's been said before but I'll say it again, it only takes one time, just like school shootings the chances of a teacher going postal with that gun or someone getting the gun from the teacher are slim and probaly wouldn't happen very often. However like school shootings by students, the effects would be disastorous and it seems to me like this would make schools less safe then they are now.
And if a teacher wishes to go postal, and commit multiple acts of murder punishable by up to death, the extra 5 years in jail for ignoring the "gun free" zone rule is going to deter them from bringing in a weapon how exactly? That rule (along with 20 or so other laws) didn't stop any of the students who shot up their schools. Why, it's almost like people who commit criminal acts don't obey the law or something.... :rolleyes:
Garbage Pail Kid
10-08-2006, 01:10 AM
Actually, I think what jdmdsp911 said is best. Also, a lot schools use door sentries and metal detectors. Those would keep weapons from being snuck in and random people from just walking into the school with weapons (all three of the recent shootings were done that way.)
illspirit
10-08-2006, 01:18 AM
Actually, I think what jdmdsp911 said is best. Also, a lot schools use door sentries and metal detectors. Those would keep weapons from being snuck in and random people from just walking into the school with weapons (all three of the recent shootings were done that way.)
Red Lake High School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lake_High_School_massacre) had both, although the guard was unarmed.
Passing through the building's main entrance, he encountered unarmed security guard Derrick Brun, who was manning the school's metal detector. Weise fatally shot Brun, and then proceeded down a hallway firing at students, killing five students and a teacher (Neva Rogers) and injuring seven others.
Actually, I think what jdmdsp911 said is best. Also, a lot schools use door sentries and metal detectors. Those would keep weapons from being snuck in and random people from just walking into the school with weapons (all three of the recent shootings were done that way.)
Red Lake High School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lake_High_School_massacre) had both, although the guard was unarmed.
And metal detectors need to be "tuned". If it isn't set right, it could either go off on anything, or not go off at all.
Garbage Pail Kid
10-08-2006, 01:40 AM
And metal detectors need to be "tuned". If it isn't set right, it could either go off on anything, or not go off at all.
So what? No one said securing a place was easy. Your ideas aren't easy to pull off either. Security of any kind takes a lot of work and skill.
So what? No one said securing a place was easy. Your ideas aren't easy to pull off either. Security of any kind takes a lot of work and skill.
I never said it would be easy.
A lot of people like to say "just put in metal detectors" and think that will solve the problem. You yourself said:
...a lot schools use door sentries and metal detectors. Those would keep weapons from being snuck in and random people from just walking into the school with weapons
I was just pointing out that you can't "just put in metal detectors". They need to be set up to only detect what you want them to. I was expanding on illspirit's point about just shooting the guard, about how a metal detector isn't the be all, end all of school security.
And I forgot to mention the fact that metal detectors would make the school feel a lot like a prison. Which people have stated would be a bad thing.
illspirit
10-08-2006, 02:21 AM
So what? No one said securing a place was easy. Your ideas aren't easy to pull off either. Security of any kind takes a lot of work and skill.
Well, with metal detectors not working all the time, they're not much more than a "feel good" defense. Just like the idea of a "gun free" zone. They just make people think they're safe, like an ostrich with its head in the sand.
Even if detectors function properly, there's nothing stopping a lunatic from opening fire before they even step through the arch. Like at Red Lake. Or, even worse, killers could open fire on a crowd of kids while they line up to go through the detector.
Beej's (and the WI state rep's) idea is easy to pull of. The simple fact that school wouldn't be guaranteed victim disarmament zones will make them less attractive targets. Teachers wouldn't even need to be armed en masse (or fire a shot) to scare off many a would-be predator. The chance that teachers might be armed would put quite a damper on plans to kill X number of people before help can arrive. Most of these nuts want to be (in)famous. Being dropped by a teacher before they could kill anyone would defeat the purpose.
Garbage Pail Kid
10-08-2006, 02:29 AM
I never said it would be easy.
A lot of people like to say "just put in metal detectors" and think that will solve the problem. You yourself said:
I was just pointing out that you can't "just put in metal detectors". They need to be set up to only detect what you want them to. I was expanding on illspirit's point about just shooting the guard, about how a metal detector isn't the be all, end all of school security.
I know what I said. I'm implying it would not be foolproof. Nothing is foolproof. And I didn't say "just put in metal detectors. I suggested using metal detectors, with door sentries, and school police officers in the building. Stop taking things I say out of context.
And I forgot to mention the fact that metal detectors would make the school feel a lot like a prison. Which people have stated would be a bad thing.
And a bunch of school workers with guns wouldn't?
Geez, I've never argued for this long about something this stupid. I don't mean that as a personal insult (except to that congressman. **** him.) I've spoken my mind on this and I will admit I don't have the perfect solution to school shootings, but I think teachers carrying guns isn't it. The truth is shootings in schools are very rare, and there are ways to help prevent them that wouldn't have such a bad effect on the children's stress levels. I'm not saying they would just be a little stressed; many would be downright terrified if they knew that their teacher or janitor could kill them. It would adversely effect their grades as well as their mental health. Add that to the points I and other made in earlier posts about things that are wrong with this idea and I believe the cons far outweigh the pros. There are other ways to prevent violence against school children that are better. Also, all the recent school murderers committed suicide, so fear of being killed wouldn't have been a detterent.
I finished speaking on this, but I want to say one more thing.
Can you imagine how much more disciplined kids will be?
Teacher: Now, after that gunfight with the cheerleader who just wouldn't shut up, I'm not quite sure if I have any ammo left in this .44 magnum. You've just gotta ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?'. Well, do ya, punk?
kid: Jeez Mr. M I won't pass notes in class no more. @_@
^^This actually made me physically ill.
I know what I said. I'm implying it would be foolproof.
Which is part of why I made my statement.
Nothing is foolproof. And I didn't say "just put in metal detectors. I suggested using metal detectors, with door sentries, and school police officers in the building. Stop taking things I say out of context.
To me, metal detectors implies sentries. Detectors do no good if there is nobody there to stop you when they go off. And you didn't mention police officers in the post I quoted. Nothing was out of context.
And a bunch of school workers with guns wouldn't?
Not as much as detectors. With detectors, every entrance has this huge metal thing sitting in front of it, reminding students every time they go out into the hall that they are there. The guns are concealed. That means they can't be seen.
Geez, I've never argued for this long about something this stupid. I don't mean that as a personal insult (except to that congressman. **** him.) I've spoken my mind on this and I will admit I don't have the perfect solution to school shootings, but I think teachers carrying guns isn't it.
I think it's a possible solution, in the context of this thread.
The truth is shootings in schools are very rare, and there are ways to help prevent them that wouldn't have such a bad effect on the children's stress levels. I'm not saying they would just be a little stressed; many would be downright terrified if they knew that their teacher or janitor could kill them. It would adversely effect their grades as well as their mental health. Add that to the points I and other made in earlier posts about things that are wrong with this idea and I believe the cons far outweigh the pros. There are other ways to prevent violence against school children that are better. Also, all the recent school murderers committed suicide, so fear of being killed wouldn't have been a detterent.
I think the actual solution to this is really simple. Drop the whole "no guns within 500 yards of a school" thing. If a teacher already legally and responsibly owns a gun, and has a permit to carry it, and wants to bring it to school, let them. Same with the students. Same with the visitors from the community. It seems to work well in general society, I think it'll work in schools too.
I have nothing else to say.
Thanks for staying this long, and actually debating the topic. At least you were willing to hear my ideas, even if you don't agree with them.
Garbage Pail Kid
10-08-2006, 03:00 AM
Crap. I left out the word not, as in not implying it would be foolproof. Wait, did we just have a lengthy debate on a highly controversial topic without degenerating into personal insults?
Dude. No way.
illspirit
10-08-2006, 04:23 AM
And a bunch of school workers with guns wouldn't [make it feel like a prison]?
Not if you didn't see the guns. ;)
We're not talking about teachers patrolling the halls with M4s, or sandbag bunkers with heavy machine guns here. But rather teachers with concealed pistols (holster under a jacket or in a purse), or perhaps locked in a safe in the principal's office or something. I carry a full-size 9mm and nobody seems to notice, even if it's only hidden under a light colored, untucked T-shirt.
Besides, civilians with guns don't really give off that police-y feeling.
The truth is shootings in schools are very rare, and there are ways to help prevent them that wouldn't have such a bad effect on the children's stress levels. I'm not saying they would just be a little stressed; many would be downright terrified if they knew that their teacher or janitor could kill them.
If a kid has such an irrational fear of an inanimiate object, perhaps they should be seeing a psychiatrist?
Kids and teachers brought guns to school for hundreds of years with no problems. And not just in rural redneck land either. Someone on another forum said their father was on a school target shooting team in NYC sometime in the 60's.
Also, all the recent school murderers committed suicide, so fear of being killed wouldn't have been a detterent.
Right. They committed suicide after they went on their rampage. If they got killed before they could finish, it would be an embarrassing failure instead of something which gains notoriety. Seriously. With all the talk of Columbines, Jonesboros, and such, when is the last time anyone (media, gun-control advocates, et al) have even mentioned Pearl Junior High or Luke Woodham? They don't. Because a vice principal, with a gun, held the shooter at bay until the cops arrived.
Attention-seeking lunatics don't want to go out like that. Hence why they don't often attack hardened targets like police stations, or targets in public where they don't know if someone might be packing.
Crap. I left out the word not, as in not implying it would be foolproof.
Well then, ignore the first line of my last post.
Wait, did we just have a lengthy debate on a highly controversial topic with degenerating into personal insults?
Dude. No way.
I'm assuming you meant "without". :) Yeah, proof that it can happen. Let's just hope everyone follows our example.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.