A solution to school shootings

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: tanstaafl

While the 2nd prevents government from infringing on the right to bear arms, it in no way demands it of anyone. I think a fair amount of teachers and administrators would probably object to being told they had to carry a weapon as part of their employment agreement.

Then they can find another job. There is nothing unConstitutional or unlawful about certain jobs having certain requirements.

That said, I understand my position is a bit extreme, and don't realistically expect any jurisdiction to go quite that far.

One intended (on my part) consequence of such a requirement though would be the exclusion of virtually all extreme radical leftists from these jobs.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: chr0naut

Just a patriot. I believe in the Constitution in its entirety. If someone is willing to sacrifice any part of it, they may as well sacrifice it all. Take out the part that makes it possible to defend the rest, and the rest will fall whether you like it or not.

Often I have found that people who consider themselves patriots these days are actually anti-government, and wish all sorts of illegal things upon other American citizens who have a different ideology. These people who call themselves patriots are outright un-American.

And, many things are done within the American governmental system, despite the Constitution being specifically against them. Things such as the warrant-less surveillance of US citizens, or the deportation or institutionalization of the children of undocumented immigrants but who were born in the United States.

Similarly, there are a lot of things that Americans believe are their statutory rights, which are not even part of ANY state or federal statutory law. Things such as the presumption of innocence in a court of law until proven guilty. Things such as the fact that there is no directive that a natural person owns their own self, and that there is also an exception written in to the anti-slavery amendments, that still allows for the enslavement of those convicted of a felony.

Until Americans can acknowledge the deficits in the Constitution and statutory law of the US, and instances where traditions have sprung up of doing the unconstitutional (like a judge who will not 'hear' someone's case, or officers of the law who can lie and intimidate to secure a confession), things will not change.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I was as well. Right out of high school I worked my way up the ladder at a security company. I was a Lt. and in charge of training by the time I left. What protections you have depend on several things. What state you are in, what type of license your company has, what training you have had, etc. I had a security clearance due to government work done at our facility. In a time of emergency if the governor of the state had been at my facility he would have taken orders from me.

Most security guards work loss prevention at retail stores or run Detex clock rounds after normal business hours at other places of business. Its not so much due to the idea that someone will break in, its for insurance purposes. Having a live person in every area of the building on an hourly basis gets a company a big discount on insurance. Its worth it to have guards doing walking tours. The Detex clock stations prove the guard was in every area of the building on every tour. At my facility we had a much more complex system due to the nature of the work performed. It was more like the light bars at hospitals with each color serving a different purpose. Those lights were operated by a person in a control center three stories underground that only a few people could even get to. It was a serious place.

You are correct that the protections for guards is different than for police and civilians. But any guard who used any kind of weapon that he was not authorized, provided, and trained for by the company would not only lose his job, he would face criminal charges from us.

For purposes of this suggestion, to reduce or eliminate school shootings, I would push for a special provision of protection for those guards or officers based on the expected scope of duty.

I had to write my research paper about stopping school shootings and the shortest conclusion I can claim is that the unique and entire issue is to forbid guns for simple citizens. We have to accept it.

a reply to: KathrynTrujillo

First politicians need to get rid of their armed security. Then we can talk about it.

originally posted by: KathrynTrujillo
I had to write my research paper about stopping school shootings and the shortest conclusion I can claim is that the unique and entire issue is to forbid guns for simple citizens. We have to accept it.

Wrong answer. It's plain and simple, gun laws only affect the people that you don't have to worry about in the first place. Criminals don't obey the law.

originally posted by: KathrynTrujillo
I had to write my research paper about stopping school shootings and the shortest conclusion I can claim is that the unique and entire issue is to forbid guns for simple citizens. We have to accept it.

Id like to see the sourcing you used to back up that solution.

We have a 2nd amendment. You have to accept it (even if you choose to not use it).

originally posted by: KathrynTrujillo
I had to write my final paper about stopping school shootings which led me to research paper writing services, and the shortest conclusion I can claim is that the unique and entire issue is to forbid guns for simple citizens. We have to accept it, analyze its realization ways and implement it. ca.edubirdie.com... is the source that helped me with my paper task and made me realize why guns should be forbidden. I thought it was clear enough, but I see that most people don't see this solution as a reasonable one. My university friends and professors agree with my conclusion since the writers gave me enough transparent explanations and arguments for my research work.

Folks, after talking to professional police officers, I assure you that we need to ban the carrying of weapons because it increases crime. It is tragic when it increases the chances of a confrontation becoming lethal. Moreover, it is not protected by the Second Amendment and public safety it should be left to professionally qualified police officers. I see the advantages of self-defense via guns, but it's not an issue anyway.

a reply to: KathrynTrujillo

I disagree entirely.

First of all, allowing conceal carry usually results in a decrease in violent crime, not an increase. Many people will try to point out that several years later crime has indeed increased but fail to point out that the increase is proportional to the increase in population. The rate of crime has most likely decreased overall. Chicago has some tough gun laws and it is one of the worst cities as far as murder with firearms. If tougher gun laws stopped crime, Chicago would be paradise - not a third world sh1thole.

Depending on police officers in a life threatening situation is not the best idea. Typically, police do not even become aware of a situation until after it happens. Police typically do not arrive while an event is still happening unless the event has a significantly greater duration than most. It is very rare, and a complete coincidence, for police to be at the scene of a crime before it actually happens.

If intervention in a violent crime is the goal, police showing up after the fact is not the ideal situation. Its not their fault and I don't blame them. Its the nature of the beast. Something happens, someone calls 911, the call is dispatched, the officers go to the location of the event. It could be a minute, it could be much more. It only takes a few seconds to kill someone, with any kind of weapon, if that is what you want to do.

SPAM

Well didn't Biden hire 78,000 armed IRS agents, make their day job to protect schools...problem solved...

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Honestly, the very best solution

originally posted by: KathrynTrujillo
I had to write my research paper about stopping school shootings and the shortest conclusion I can claim is that the unique and entire issue is to forbid guns for simple citizens. We have to accept it.

Really, is that what gun owners are now? Simple citizens. I get it, "simple citizens in the basket of deplorables."

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Chicago sees 50 to 60 shootings a weekend along with 5~8 dead every weekend. Gun laws have never fixed anything.

Theres really ony two viable solutions to school shootings. Remote learning/Zoom schools OR, you build new schools that look like high walled Prison Camps with Machine Gun tower turrets. Use them as boarding schools and let the little buggers out for good behavior everyother weekend.

As for the arming of the teachers? I really don't see that doing much good. I kinda don't think the Granny Tranny playing with himself in the 2nd grade classroom is gonna be much of a deterrent.

it is veru useful for me information

a reply to: KathrynTrujillo

Google the US Supreme Court decision Gonzales vs Castle Rock. It states that the Police have no obligation to protect an individual or group of individuals.

Several years ago we had an incident on the street I live on. I walked out on to my front porch with a shotgun to find a lone Police Officer trying to detain three men. I knew the officer and told him that I had his back. When more officers arrived I lowered the shotgun. Afterward the Sargent bitched me out for having the weapon. A few days later I was in my yard when the officer I knew drove up, got out of his car, came over and thanked me. The Sargent was the Union rep. The Police you see on TV supporting banning guns are UNION representatives. The Police Unions are against guns because the more citizens that carry them the lower the crime rate. They are afraid that the lower the crime rate the less need for the Police.

SPAM

originally posted by: miarose7878
It is not protected by the Second Amendment, and public safety should be left to professionally trained police personnel. I recognise the benefits of self-defense with guns, but it's not an issue for me.

I hope it never becomes an issue for you, but, remember, "When seconds count, the Police are minutes away."

While you are at it Google "Gonzales vs Castle Rock". It's a US Supreme Court that states that the Police are under no obligation to protect an individual or group of individuals. Their duty is to Society as a whole.

That pretty much means that you are on your own.