Does It Really Make Sense To Militarize Schools?

a reply to: JoshuaCox
Unless you count people individually trying to make money off the military industrial complex or earning their living with being part of it, occasionally co-operating when it's in their own interest as a conspiracy or multiple conspiracies I've no idea what you're talking about. Since that was what I was talking about including the accompanying marketing and propaganda techniques to promote the need for the so-called "War on Terror" and increased security measures and expenditures that allow different parts of the military industrial complex to make more money. Or global policies made up by those receiving a portion of their campaign funds from different influential wealthy individuals working in positions of authority and power in a military industrial complex such as the ones in Russia, France, the US and Israel, to name a few examples.

Unless you want to count the demonstration of greed as a conspiracy I mentioned no conspiracies.

When I said:

They know what they're doing and there is a plan...

I was referring to those responsible for marketing and propaganda for the different sections in what Eisenhower referred to as "the military industrial complex" of which there are many in different countries who occasionally will operate in eachothers best interest for personal gain (or nationalism). It's not like they come up with a plan together. Their tactics and resulting policies of the politicians they support (often financially) is a result of their interests and the similar policy decisions come from the same interests and ways of thinking, it's not much of a conspiracy, so at most my chosen terminology of "they" and "plan" is a poor choice for keeping it short there. If that was the phrase that made you think I was talking about conspiracies. Perhaps I could have used "marketing plan".

So statistically it does not make sense to have guns in schools as a federal policy.

a reply to: whereislogic

Of course there are individual cases of corruption. I am referencing the thought that it is all one big group. Rather than thousands of competing groups..


If there is only one main group running things. Then there is no use for money scams..

They could just fire up the printers and print whatever cash they wanted basically for free..

Well for free compared to 911 or any other false flag in history.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: whereislogic

I am referencing the thought that it is all one big group.

Why in response to my commentary? I wasn't talking about "one big group". At most I was talking about one big cause and effect chain:

greed > military industrial complexes > governmental policies that operate in the best interests of different sections of these military industrial complexes (including sections such as arms manufacturing+sales for private ownership as in the US, just as a reminder how this all relates to the NRA and the gun debate)

Eisenhower was quite right in describing the impact the military industrial complex would have on how people in the US would behave and think. He used the words: "The total influence, economic, political even spiritual is felt in every city, every state house, every office in the federal government."

And the situation has only grown increasingly so. Notice how neither left or right-wing media or politicians mention what Eisenhower referred to as "the military industrial complex" very often in this debate about gun control. It's an interesting subject to discuss in relation to it though.

originally posted by: Saiker
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think we should take gun training and safety more seriously. Those statistics are disappointing perhaps if people were better trained and guns were better maintained justifiable homicide would be a much better figure.

Imagine you did need to undergo rigorous training and do firearms maintenance courses to own guns, imagine how much more deadly those that commit mass shootings would be, great plan.

as a non US citizen, I find the very concept of "arming" teachers or school staff, or placing armed guards in and around schools is so utterly ridiculous, but also, frankly, stupid.

No school "defender" will have clear lines of sight to any shooter. Guess who will be in the cross fire? STUDENTS. How would a "defender" easily identify a "shooter" in a crowd of panicked kids running around? Mistakes will happen and it wont be pretty.

On the other hand, the very argument that some make that this is a "necessity" is just so bizarre.

Take the pro-gun crowd. What exactly do you need guns for? Defending your home form other people with guns? How many shootings are actually "home defense" ? Very few I would imagine. Or is it to "protect yourself from a corrupt government" ? I can assure you, no one single armed person will be able to stop a determined government coming to "take your guns away".

The US has let this gun issue escalate beyond all reason to the point of absurdity. I can assure you, pretty much the entire rest of the world is wondering just WTF is going on in your country. Nobody I know envy's or wants any kind of gun ownership because it simply isn't necessary.

Loosely controlled gun ownership is the real problem here and the sooner the pro-gun lot realise this the faster your country can move beyond this self destruction.

originally posted by: Gothmog

The National Guard already gets paid. So does the Police School Resources by the State Government. What is the difference ?

If and when it works well, not sure what we do if no teacher is Exmil except to suggest any teacher willing to take the training can carry...Police School Resources would need a rather large increase to meet needs if that is the direction we go, so this is one area where I ask who will pay

a reply to: Spider879

Maybe, it still does not change the fact that Jews and political enemies of the state were disarmed and killed. Again this is ok because you were not one of the target groups? Because mob rule says so? It still does not change the fact that they "loosened" their gun laws, it's the fact that they (via mandate, propaganda, and mob rule (democracy, which we are not) said its ok that they could be disarmed because they were not deemed worthy or human? Seriously I want an actual answer, not that partisan slanted article answer.

Do YOU think that it is ok? and if so why? Legitimate question.

Double Post

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
as a non US citizen, I find the very concept of "arming" teachers or school staff, or placing armed guards in and around schools is so utterly ridiculous, but also, frankly, stupid.

No school "defender" will have clear lines of sight to any shooter. Guess who will be in the cross fire? STUDENTS. How would a "defender" easily identify a "shooter" in a crowd of panicked kids running around? Mistakes will happen and it wont be pretty.

The main point is if a person wanted to go into a school to kill would they go into a gun free zone school or one where they know there may be guns to defend? To also say no school defender would have line of sight is not an accurate statement since once again just having an armed person will put the person on a defensive posture.

Do you want a shooter free rain for 15 mins to shoot with zero deterrent or do you want them to either choose not to in the first place due to the possibility of guns already there in defense or limit the time to much lower than 15 mins, or even seconds before they would need to go on the defensive?

a reply to: Xtrozero


The simple point is - if guns are not easily available then you will see a drastic reduction - almost to zero - of school shootings. It is really a simple concept.


To counter your first point, many school shootings are done by students of a school. They will go where they are most familiar - their own school. Doesn't matter if there are armed staff/guards/whatever present or not. Wait until lunch break, go into the lunch hall and let rip etc. Kids will still die, and kids will still get in the crossfire of armed defenders.


would an armed member of staff be able to take down a shooter with zero kids getting in the way before the shooter can open fire? I think not.

Militarize? Probably not. Armed guards? Definitely. The average hospital has better security than the average school. The average Wal-Mart probably has better security than the average school. Gee. I wonder why mass shooters always seem to get so far before someone gets around to showing up to stop them?

"Hey Bill. I just got a call about a shooter at the school. Do you think we should send someone down there?"

"Ahhh hell, Martha! I don't know! Let me have a cup of coffee and think about it real hard!"

You want to spend more money on education? Spend some money on security and start expelling problem kids who like to walk out of class to protest the Bill Of Rights. Why spend tax money on these turds?

We have facial recognition on cell phones but there isn't a security system that can detect gunfire? I don't see any evidence they have tried to do anything but call for the Bill Of Rights to be scribbled out with crayon.

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: Xtrozero


The simple point is - if guns are not easily available then you will see a drastic reduction - almost to zero - of school shootings. It is really a simple concept.

The simpler point is if a person wants to kill they will kill. What if he pulled the fire alarm and instead of shooting people he got in a big old truck and hit the crowed of students numbered in a 1000 or two at 80 miles per hour?

To counter your first point, many school shootings are done by students of a school. They will go where they are most familiar - their own school. Doesn't matter if there are armed staff/guards/whatever present or not. Wait until lunch break, go into the lunch hall and let rip etc. Kids will still die, and kids will still get in the crossfire of armed defenders.

How does the killer get in the school if there is control at the entrances? Why do they go there to kill? Were they bullied or was everyone their friend? How does a person get kicked out of school and have the authorities at many different level get called 31 times and no action taken?

Guns been in America a long time, they are a right...not sure if you understand what a right is...

No. 99% of schools will never see an active shooter incident.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
as a non US citizen, I find the very concept of "arming" teachers or school staff, or placing armed guards in and around schools is so utterly ridiculous, but also, frankly, stupid.

No school "defender" will have clear lines of sight to any shooter. Guess who will be in the cross fire? STUDENTS. How would a "defender" easily identify a "shooter" in a crowd of panicked kids running around? Mistakes will happen and it wont be pretty.

The main point is if a person wanted to go into a school to kill would they go into a gun free zone school or one where they know there may be guns to defend? To also say no school defender would have line of sight is not an accurate statement since once again just having an armed person will put the person on a defensive posture.

Do you want a shooter free rain for 15 mins to shoot with zero deterrent or do you want them to either choose not to in the first place due to the possibility of guns already there in defense or limit the time to much lower than 15 mins, or even seconds before they would need to go on the defensive?

I thought statistically most school shooters don't enter the premises with the expectation of survival. Is there any data to back up the assertion that they would be dissuaded to commit the atrocity if there was a chance of return fire, or is it still theoretical at this point?

not anymore than it made sense to radiate our own citizens and force mothers to drink their baby's bottled breast milk!
doing a study on what part these over prescribed meds that our doctor's seem to want to hand out to make people happier or less stressed out because our society doesn't really care weather it has policies that promotes less stress and happiness but rather seems to thrive on destroying people might help.

doing something to actually help the mentally ill instead of leaving them out on the streets wandering around when they are incapable of functioning in our society might help.

reducing the rhetoric that seems to want to convince us all that half or our population is the enemy and has to be destroyed or converted might help.

ensuring that those who have guns are sane and responsible enough to act accordingly would help.

militarizing our schools more than likely is just gonna put our kids in the middle of the crossfire causing more deaths and trauma.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: Xtrozero


The simple point is - if guns are not easily available then you will see a drastic reduction - almost to zero - of school shootings. It is really a simple concept.

The simpler point is if a person wants to kill they will kill. What if he pulled the fire alarm and instead of shooting people he got in a big old truck and hit the crowed of students numbered in a 1000 or two at 80 miles per hour?

To counter your first point, many school shootings are done by students of a school. They will go where they are most familiar - their own school. Doesn't matter if there are armed staff/guards/whatever present or not. Wait until lunch break, go into the lunch hall and let rip etc. Kids will still die, and kids will still get in the crossfire of armed defenders.

How does the killer get in the school if there is control at the entrances? Why do they go there to kill? Were they bullied or was everyone their friend? How does a person get kicked out of school and have the authorities at many different level get called 31 times and no action taken?

Guns been in America a long time, they are a right...not sure if you understand what a right is...

So you want to advocate to search and scan every student , staff member and visitor at the entrance to every school, all the time, instead of just making guns harder to obtain?

Which is the biggest "right" infringement there ?

In the UK you could consider it every citizens "right" to not easily obtain or keep guns. We don't worry about getting shot, we dobt worry about school shootings and we don't worry what may happen if we piss off soneone in the street.

Sure there is gun violence but it is very occasional and not rwally any real concern

originally posted by: Wayfarer

I thought statistically most school shooters don't enter the premises with the expectation of survival. Is there any data to back up the assertion that they would be dissuaded to commit the atrocity if there was a chance of return fire, or is it still theoretical at this point?

There is so few school shootings it is hard to tell, but they do want maximum carnage right and knowing that they could meet resistance will affect their thought process. In this last shooting he lived...shot up the place walked out and surrendered later, as was the case with James Holmes, so would either of those happen if the gunmen suspected gun resistance? I don't believe they want suicide as a main point...

originally posted by: MasterAtArms

So you want to advocate to search and scan every student , staff member and visitor at the entrance to every school, all the time, instead of just making guns harder to obtain?

The big question is what do you mean by harder to obtain, and would it make a big difference? I need to badge in to work...it is not very hard thing to do. Walking though a metal detector set at a high level of detecting is not very infringing on.

we don't worry what may happen if we piss off soneone in the street.

Really?

Bad City

While both London and New York have populations of around 8 million, figures suggest you are almost six times more likely to be burgled in the British capital than in the US city, and one and a half times more likely to fall victim to a robbery.

London has almost three times the number of reported rapes and while the murder rate in New York remains higher, the gap is narrowing dramatically.

I guess beatings is just a part of life...lol At the end of the day bad people in America and in the UK will do bad things. If you feel to limit EVERYONE'S rights to somehow stop those who do not respect rights or the law as a good thing then so be it.

a reply to: Spider879

they may have liberalized gun ownership for the general population but jews were banned from possessing ANY weapon period, even before the weapons act of 1938 they used the excuse that jews couldn't be trusted to imprison jews and confiscated their money and property.

they did ban guns for jews at least.