NRA wants armed guards in schools

So dumb on so many levels.

So is this security guard going to be in every single place at the same time?
What if this security guard decides to go nuts and kill everyone?
What if the security guard knows the person that's about shoot things up and doesn't want to shoot him?
What if the security guard's power goes to his/her head and he starts threatening kids for small scuffles?
What if a few kids that don't have guns decide to jump a security guard and now they have a gun to go take out some classmates?
Honestly, if some kid is running around with a gun, it would probably be pretty easy for some kid to distract the security guard and shoot him while he's looking away. Hell, the kid with the gun could even say, 'omg, some kid was chasing me down the street and he has a gun! go get him!' kid sneaks into gun with school.
It is not easy to shoot someone, especially a kid.
I still can't believe it would be suggested that principals/some teachers would have access to guns to protect students. Because having guns on school property would never EVER be stolen by sneaky students. Not as if a teacher or principal could lose their mind and go on a shooting spree. Not as if a principal or teacher would ever be absolutely horrified at shooting at a student that they may have known for many years. Yup, nothing that could go wrong there.

There are so many things wrong with this.

Keeping guns as far away from school is the best solution. NRA, you are so incredibly clueless it is painful.

Originally posted by Ghostcooler
Anyone with some high school chemistry classes and a little wherewithal could theoretically walk into any big-box store(ie:w-mart,h-depot, etc) whip up a few chemical combinations and kill everyone in the store with very little problems and they wouldn't need to bring anything into the store but themselves because all the supply's they would need to make a very simple toxic chemical reaction are readily available right in the store !

I get your point. One could grab a large chef's knife from the shelf and actually run around and stab 20 kids critically, before being tackled and all. Actually, your own example doesn't work too well. I took chemistry at a level way above high school, and while I could think of a thing or two, it's not that trivial to construct a chemical weapon from household chemicals. Case in point, the Tokyo poison gas attack, highly elaborate and using sarin, resulted in a handful of death, thankfully -- proving you are very, very wrong.

Firearms are different, because any schmuck who doesn't know what "chemistry" means, or one who does but is too agitated to figure it all out, can still squeeze out a few rounds. While the chef's knife can be deadly, a shot to the head is more likely to be so. There is certain finality in pulling the trigger.

reply to post by ErEhWoN
Americas Congress will decide. LOL!!!

reply to post by hoochymama

Understood. I dont think the NRA has the solution just like the Congress, Senate, or White House.

100% agree. The solution is with US. Me and You and everyone else that has a stake in matter. Change doesn't come FROM government, it comes TO government. From US. Just ask MLK Jr.

In Chicago alone (earlier post) there were many more deaths with over 2000 rounds shot this year alone. Wheres the outcry??

If those deaths were of 6 and 7 year old angels and their protectors, there would be an outcry. Just as there is now.

I was born in Chi-town. Lived there 27 years. Most of those are probably gang related. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Originally posted by phoenixlights321
So dumb on so many levels.

So is this security guard going to be in every single place at the same time?

So true. That schmuck from NRA must have no idea of what modern schools look like. I do because I have small kids. It's a sprawl! It takes a grown person a while to get from one corner to the other. And while they do so, they'd be very exposed to fire (like in a shooting alley) in those long corridors, from a determined attacker.

It's too bad that NRA exposed its leadership as having not much of a brain.

reply to post by vonclod


Canada is without a doubt lower on murders than the US. A couple things to consider though. Canada has 38mil people, the US over 311mil people. I'm sure crime itself is lower there. And they have mounties which are just damn cool. Plus the US has a ton of illegal Mexicans that help our crime stats too. But all things considered Canada is probably a nice place to live. The US has it's issues, however I am a citizen and I do take my rights personal. Especially since I served my country, so I feel I deserve the rights laid out by the US Constitution.

reply to post by hoochymama


I thought this thread was based on the OP. There are many issues that should be addressed however sticking with the issue in the OP it is just plain idiotic to oppose providing security for children.

Originally posted by Liberal1984
The only issue I have with this suggestion is: How much would it cost for these armed guards? How many teaches, books or indeed cancer treatments could be afforded for the same cost?
Rather than having an armed, school power happy snitch & bully; it would perhaps be better to have every teacher armed (or perhaps every other teacher in order to reduce the risk of a psycho teacher massacre!).

I agree it's terrible in every massacre nobody has been armed enough to fight back. I also agree that America is just about impossible to disarm, to the degree that would make gun deaths fall to European levels (after all it's the criminals you have to disarm). I like being in an un-armed society, but believe America is stuck with an armed one -certainly there will be few crime benefits for many decades.

Other Issue Is...
These last two massacres seem real suspicious -like the work of hypnosis. If there's anything true these conspiracies then nothing will stop more massacres till the terrorist-government have got what they want.

I think I was reading that it would cost $5 Billion a year to cover every public school with a police officer, that was if his average salary was $50k a year. That would also cover his pension,health care and such.

cnn link

Looks like it costs $850,000 per soldier,per year in Afghanistan! I think that works out to about 5800 soldiers in Afghanistan vrs every school in the US being covered. At least our tax dollars would stay here because we all know a Soldier doesnt make $850k a year.

Bill

Bill

Israeli Teacher guarding her students


Enough said.

reply to post by phoenixlights321
How do you keep a gun away from a School?? What if a crazy lunatic gets access to a gun and decides to shoot a bunch of kids??

What happens if a Country got rid of every gun from every Citizen and the Gunman gets a gun from somewhere else and still shoots a bunch of kids??

What happens if the whole earth decides to rid guns from every citizen of the World and someone steals a gun from a Police Man, takes it and shoots a bunch of kids??

What happens if we take the guns from cops, and someone gets a gun from a country which has a bunch of guns and shots a bunch of kids??

What happens if we take the guns from all the Countries and someone decides to steal a 500LB bomb from a Airplane and decides to detonate it in a school of a bunch of kids??

Get where I am going here....

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I only read a couple pages before posting. You people that are against protecting the children are idiots. I went to schools where we had armed guards and nothing happened. The common sense thing to do is have a police officer at every school but the anti-gun crowd would rather something like SH happen again.

Before you come down hot and heavy, tell me how the hell the guns in that freak's house were not locked away like really, really well. There are 10,000 ways to protect a firearm. My friends do it. I have many collector friends. When I had to handle a AK-47, I did it with respect it deserves. For all I care, your gun collection can be held at the county repository, and you can check out your rifle when you please if you show the papers. What we have in reality is that nutty kids either BUY a firearm or steal it and sweep the street.

reply to post by Camperguy


I think each town or city would have enough money if they did a yearly pledge drive for the salaries of that specific thing. And the towns that fell short could talk to neighboring towns that went over. It could almost be like a neighbors taking care of neighbors situation.

Or the military could build one less fighter jet each year and pay for all of it.

Originally posted by hoochymama
What happens if the whole earth decides to rid guns from every citizen of the World and someone steals a gun from a Police Man, takes it and shoots a bunch of kids??

I don't think that's easy. Case in point, our country has plenty of plutonium, it's been a while since I saw a homemade nuke. Possible? Yes. Likely? No.

reply to post by ErEhWoN


We can do better, you are right. When the criminals give up guns, then the law abiding should. That would be better. But we can't keep the criminals from getting weapons, even if we ban guns. So what would you propose tot be better? Just curious, as I am a law abiding gun owner, however I am reasonable.

reply to post by Fireman205253


From Wiki en.wikipedia.org...

From 1984 to 1996, multiple killings aroused public concern. The 1984 Milperra massacre was a major incident in a series of conflicts between various 'outlaw motorcycle gangs'. In 1987, the Hoddle Street massacre and the Queen Street massacre took place in Melbourne. In response, several states required the registration of all guns, and restricted the availability of self-loading rifles and shotguns. In the Strathfield massacre in New South Wales, 1991, two were killed with a knife, and five more with a firearm. Tasmania passed a law in 1991 for firearm purchasers to obtain a licence, though enforcement was light. Firearm laws in Tasmania and Queensland remained relatively relaxed for longarms. In 1995, Tasmania had the second lowest rate of homicides per head of population.

And read this as if it were in todays headlines. Eerily familiar tones I think.

The Port Arthur massacre in 1996 transformed gun control legislation in Australia. Thirty five people were killed and 21 wounded when a man with a history of violent and erratic behaviour beginning in early childhood[14] opened fire on shop owners and tourists with two military style semi-automatic rifles. Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in Scotland,[9] this mass killing at the notorious former convict prison at Port Arthur horrified the Australian public and had powerful political consequences.

Change the last sentence to "this mass killing at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut horrified the American public and had powerful political consequences" and its a mirror image of recent events.

reply to post by Grimpachi
Understood. Just pointing out the issues. There are many and not so easy as having a security force in every school in the union. I protect my own but I dont ever consider or trust someone else to do it for me.

Originally posted by watchitburn
I was thinking, and I'm just throwing this out there.

Maybe have 2 or 3 teachers in each school be armed?
Let the faculty vote on who it should be, and ensure they are properly trained in weapon safety and handling.
Just an idea.

Yes, I'm sure a teacher would love to shoot a student that they may have known for years. What if it was some bullied kid and the teacher knew that kid was being bullied? Probably make some teacher's head explode with all of the things running through his/her head. Shooting someone, especially a kid, is not an easy thing for anyone. Say the teacher shot this kid, then what? That could scar the teacher for life. They may never ever want to be in a school again. If you shoot some kid, whether justified or not, you don't think their nutter gun toting daddy or mommy isn't going to come down to the school and shoot up whoever killed their kid? By putting a gun in a teacher's hand, you are now putting a potentially unharmed person into the number 1 threat for the shooter. Teacher with the gun is the person that the shooter is going to go after first. Why should they be dragged in to a situation that may not have any thing to do with them? Absolutely ridiculous to put a teacher in that position. On top of that, not as if they might be nervous and freeze up. Shoot the teacher and then the kid has another gun. Wonderful.

What if someone decides to kill a security guard? You think someone else is going to want to be the security guard at this school? Have at it America. The sooner those security guards end up dead and the shooting spree continues, the faster they will realize that less guns is better.

reply to post by buddhasystem
This in itself makes me think this is a set up for some reason.

reply to post by buddhasystem
Many of Cop cars have been stolen. I am sure a 12 gauge whas in there somewhere.

Edit: The reason my post was like that is assumtions from every angle should be considered if your point is against a certain argument.

reply to post by ErEhWoN


Thank you for posting that I didn't know if it was isolated or actually a bunch of massacres.