NRA offers solution: Armed guards in every US school

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by CorvusCamenarum

...

I wasn't talking about the USSS, unless by some off chance they're not up to the task on their own (which I doubt). So why the need for 10 armed cops in addition? Oh, and they're looking to hire, so eventually make it 11. The point is, if it's not the answer, then why is it already being selectively done?

The USSS details aren't there to protect the entire school population—though their presence probably makes a lot of the typical SRO duties redundant, the USSS isn't going to enforce the school zone speed limit, for example, nor do they really have jurisdiction to remove a student for having a joint in his locker.

School police really serve a parallel, but different enough, function that Sidwell Friends believes it needs both.

Moreover, there's a vast difference between doing it at one school and doing it nationally in every single elementary school. And, this doesn't solve the larger problem of shootings in the United States. The NRA solution is a one-off at its very best.

...I don't see it as a gun issue. I see it as a cultural issue that goes far deeper, and sadly is probably irreparable at this stage.

I don't think you can tease apart the culture and the "gun issue" so easily, we're a gun culture and we need to consider that.

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Please......http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...control-legis#


Such a hypocrite ...Source...?? What a joke...What a typical response when caught with your pants down...

I'm sorry, I didn't know it was hypocritical for me to ask for a source. Weird, usually that's a sign of taking an argument seriously.

But, what do I know, I'm still wondering why my pants are down. Hopefully something fun is about to happen.

[NickZac]

Again, most cops are not well qualified (or properly armed) to handle this kind of a situation, especially if we are talking multiple shooters.

[Squadleader]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Again, most cops are not well qualified (or properly armed) to handle this kind of a situation, especially if we are talking multiple shooters.

Yea, your right...Call 911 Wait......................................Wait...................................................... ................Wait............................................Wait....20 minutes...First unit arrives, wait active shooter....Wait for the team to arrive ........Wait............................wait.................................wait................... ..................wait..............................wait...........................wait...


Finally over, bad guy out of ammo........Yea your way, much better.....

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Yea, your right...Call 911 Wait......................................Wait...................................................... ................Wait............................................Wait....20 minutes...First unit arrives, wait active shooter....Wait for the team to arrive ........Wait............................wait.................................wait................... ..................wait..............................wait...........................wait...


Finally over, bad guy out of ammo........Yea your way, much better.....

And your way is what exactly? Passing out guns like candy to everyone and turning our streets and nation into one big wild west shoot out?

It's a fact that a single guard isn't going to do squat in a school situation with a large footprint and multiple access points. So unless we are prepared to send in a squad of people to each location, then all you have done is created an illusion of safety, not real safety. Then the next question becomes how do you pay for that and what message is that sending to the kids...how will sending them to an armed encampment everyday effect their development in years to come?

Bottom line is that you have to ask yourself what is different about the U.S. compared to other western countries? Why are we having this problem to this extent and they are not? I say availability of guns and lack of mental health resources.

[samiwas]

Thank god I went to high school in a time where there was full open access (1987-1993). No security, no locked doors, no single-access point, no armed guards. In fact, the school didn't even have a security system. And during the day, anyone could walk in or out in any of several dozen locations.

And now? Schools should be prepared to be locked up like Fort Knox, with high tech security systems, and have armed guards. Oh, how times have changed...and apparently this is the America that we should want?? I say BS.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Thank god I went to high school in a time where there was full open access (1987-1993). No security, no locked doors, no single-access point, no armed guards. In fact, the school didn't even have a security system. And during the day, anyone could walk in or out in any of several dozen locations.

Same here; roughly the same time as well (1988 - 1992). My school was closed campus, meaning we couldn't leave if we had an open period), but everything else was the same: no metal detectors, security, locked doors, and visitors, as long as they checked in at the administrative office, could visit the school any time they wanted.

And now? Schools should be prepared to be locked up like Fort Knox, with high tech security systems, and have armed guards. Oh, how times have changed...and apparently this is the America that we should want?? I say BS.

This. In fact, do those who want this realize that they are turning this into their own miniature Israel, and are wanting to defend it against our own citizens? Talk about modern day civil war or insurrection! Again, this has to be the dumbest, and one of the most idiotic ideas the NRA has ever come up with.

BL.

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Yea, your right...Call 911 Wait......................................Wait...................................................... ................Wait............................................Wait....20 minutes...First unit arrives, wait active shooter....Wait for the team to arrive ........Wait............................wait.................................wait................... ..................wait..............................wait...........................wait...


Finally over, bad guy out of ammo........Yea your way, much better.....

You clearly do not understand how cops would respond to something like this. A call like that would be an all points call and you would have cops flying down the streets at full throttle sirens a blazing.

If the response time was over 2-3 mins for first unit to get on site something is wrong. Those are high speed calls.

Now lets say you come home and find your house was broken into (guy gone) then yeah it more than likely going to take awhile because there is no real danger right then an there so they will get someone there when they get the chance.

I have called the cops a few times in my life. Ranging my car was smashed into while I was gone (took the cops around an hour to get their) to 2 domestive viloince calls I had to make on neighbors and both those the first cop arrived which in a minute or 2. First cops job was to be a distriction and break up the fight while the guy with training could get in.

Now I know people who call the cops for a arm bank robbey where I lived. We are talking minutes for first one and had multiple cops flying down the street from across town to provide back up. They also contacted the Houston PD to bring in Swat team which yes took longer to get their but they had boots on the ground to handle the first threat while waiting for the guys trained to deal with it to get their.

[glocke12]

So when the NRA suggests putting armed guards in schools, they are crazy...

Not sure if anyone posted this already or not, but Bill Clinton, the hero of the left suggested much the same thing, and he was not chastised for it:

http://times247.com/articles/bill-cl...rds-in-schools

[APlotdevice]

Originally Posted by glocke12

So when the NRA suggests putting armed guards in schools, they are crazy...

Not sure if anyone posted this already or not, but Bill Clinton, the hero of the left suggested much the same thing, and he was not chastised for it:

http://times247.com/articles/bill-cl...rds-in-schools

Yes it was already brought up. And as I pointed out then, the difference is that Clinton was also for stronger gun control laws. Something that the NRA and the gun manufacturers whom it truely represents vehemently oppose.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by glocke12

So when the NRA suggests putting armed guards in schools, they are crazy...

Not sure if anyone posted this already or not, but Bill Clinton, the hero of the left suggested much the same thing, and he was not chastised for it:

http://times247.com/articles/bill-cl...rds-in-schools

I wasn't paying any attention to politics then, or I probably would have said he was crazy.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Yea, your right...Call 911 Wait......................................Wait...................................................... ................Wait............................................Wait....20 minutes...First unit arrives, wait active shooter....Wait for the team to arrive ........Wait............................wait.................................wait................... ..................wait..............................wait...........................wait...


Finally over, bad guy out of ammo........Yea your way, much better.....

I don't think you understand these situations. It's more like shoot, miss, collateral damage, cop gets shot, more innocent people dead. If you are going to have armed guards, you need skilled operators, pal. I would expect someone with your user name to understand this. Otherwise you are just setting up a bloodbath of collateral damage. Take a look at police shootings. You are talking 20, 30, 40, 50 or more shots fired with only a few hitting the intended target. Have you ever done a real stress-shooting exercise? If so, then you can relate to how easy it is to miss a target less than 10 feet away from you in these scenarios. Now put that in a crowded school with paper thin walls and children running all over the place...what do you think is gong to happen?

You need people who are shooting anti-personel weapons frequently (whether that be subguns, PDWs, precision rifles, etc.), not a pistol every few months for qualifications. You need people who can use LTL technology to avoid the risk of collateral damage in cases in which the identity of the shooter is in question. You need people who are shooting 5.56 frang rounds designed to minimize wall penetration but with access to AP ammo as many suspects wear armor. You need people trained in the stress shooting environment in which you will have a few assailants and MANY friendlies (i.e.: we're talking serious situational awareness and and understanding of the target and everything that surrounds the target). It amazes me that people do not realize this or refuse to consider it. Your comments are reckless and this plan endangers both children and honest officers of the law. Go watch most cops shoot for qualifications. Many can't consistently hit vitals on a (stationary) 4x3 foot target 15 feet away under rapid fire or correctly perform a tactical mag change. For the average police officer, a firearm is one of five-hundred billion things they do. Most cops aren't even gun people. Some of the greatest training material is unfortunately the most gruesome which are police shootings resulting in officer fatalities and it shows real-world scenarios and how this 'conventional' reasoning is going to get good people killed.

So I would love for you to explain to me how the hell are they going to stop a school shooting and why it is okay to intentionally set police officers up in high-risk situations clearly requiring special response teams with formal hostage, offensive/counter-offensive, and counter-terrorism training.

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

You clearly do not understand how cops would respond to something like this. A call like that would be an all points call and you would have cops flying down the streets at full throttle sirens a blazing.

If the response time was over 2-3 mins for first unit to get on site something is wrong. Those are high speed calls.

Now lets say you come home and find your house was broken into (guy gone) then yeah it more than likely going to take awhile because there is no real danger right then an there so they will get someone there when they get the chance.

I have called the cops a few times in my life. Ranging my car was smashed into while I was gone (took the cops around an hour to get their) to 2 domestive viloince calls I had to make on neighbors and both those the first cop arrived which in a minute or 2. First cops job was to be a distriction and break up the fight while the guy with training could get in.

Now I know people who call the cops for a arm bank robbey where I lived. We are talking minutes for first one and had multiple cops flying down the street from across town to provide back up. They also contacted the Houston PD to bring in Swat team which yes took longer to get their but they had boots on the ground to handle the first threat while waiting for the guys trained to deal with it to get their.

I agree response will be fast, but who is responding is what is most important IMO. For school shootings, you need smaller, rapidly deployable, special response teams with a wide array of 'skills and tools'. Police are not trained for these situations like SRTs are and police shooting after police shooting demonstrates this. These SRTs exist for these very reasons.

----------

Originally Posted by glocke12

So when the NRA suggests putting armed guards in schools, they are crazy...

Not sure if anyone posted this already or not, but Bill Clinton, the hero of the left suggested much the same thing, and he was not chastised for it:

http://times247.com/articles/bill-cl...rds-in-schools

It seems now we some people are saying "police" as in COPS, and others 'armed guards' in more of a general term.

[Squadleader]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

You clearly do not understand how cops would respond to something like this. A call like that would be an all points call and you would have cops flying down the streets at full throttle sirens a blazing.

If the response time was over 2-3 mins for first unit to get on site something is wrong. Those are high speed calls.
.

Oh really........Sandy Hook....First Unit 20 Minutes.....I have an absolute understanding of how the system works....It is most of you, who has no idea what your talking about.....None

[stuaz]

Personally I think putting Armed guards in schools is just a short term fix (That I see becoming a long term solution).

It doesn't really fix the problem at hand.

And what happens when one of those 'armed guards' encounters multiple shooters? NRA's response "MORE armed guards!"......

Why not solve the fundamental problem that is the fact that guns are so readily available. It has nothing to do with 'video games or violent movies'. Other countries have the same games and videos yet they don't suffer these kind of atrocities.

The 2nd amendment that American's so readily cling onto is of times gone. You no longer have a threat of 'the British' invading and it is also an amendment, which means it can be amended again!

[Bug-Creator]

Originally Posted by stuaz

And what happens when one of those 'armed guards' encounters multiple shooters?

I'd be more concerned about what happens when that (probraly underpayed&undertrained) guard is the one having an "epidsode" ?

Or if he's neglegting his duty and his gun so that kids start playing with ? (just remember how many kids die because they find daddy's loaded gun in the drawer)

I'd say you'd have more deaths/year from those "accidents" than from some looney storming the building.

It will happen 1 kid at a time so it won't be that big a of a news...

[Zaid]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Petrol doesn't cause fires.... Hello?

I know that was my point. Petrol doesn't cause fires in the same way that guns don't cause violence in and off themselves. But its presence greatly increases the chance of a fire if there is a source of ignition in the same way that the presence of guns can precipitate deadly violence. Sorry if the metaphor was unclear

[thewitt]

Originally Posted by Zaid

I know that was my point. Petrol doesn't cause fires in the same way that guns don't cause violence in and off themselves. But its presence greatly increases the chance of a fire if there is a source of ignition in the same way that the presence of guns can precipitate deadly violence. Sorry if the metaphor was unclear

Unclear and irrelevant.

Cars around you blowing up are they? Petrol stations self-destructing as you drive by? Garages exploding as the lawn mower can spontaneously combusts?

Guns are not the problem. There are many more guns in YOUR neighborhood in the US than you will ever know about, and guns are not the problem.

Banning guns? Just another excuse to try to control the population.

Lets punish criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime. Any crime. Life in prison no parole or death penalty if you even possess a gun during the commission of a felony. No excuses. No exceptions. Gun crime goes down where this is practiced.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Unclear and irrelevant.

Cars around you blowing up are they? Petrol stations self-destructing as you drive by? Garages exploding as the lawn mower can spontaneously combusts?

Guns are not the problem. There are many more guns in YOUR neighborhood in the US than you will ever know about, and guns are not the problem.

Banning guns? Just another excuse to try to control the population.

Lets punish criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime. Any crime. Life in prison no parole or death penalty if you even possess a gun during the commission of a felony. No excuses. No exceptions. Gun crime goes down where this is practiced.

Gun crime also goes down where there are strict regulations on type and ownership. Nobody realistically thinks that all guns are going to be banned. It seems some are so paranoid they are going to take your guns away, that you aren't able to see or think logically.

If you don't think that the amount of guns available, the ease of availability, and irresponsible gun owners in this country are part of the problem, than you are living in a dream world. The only problem? No. But a huge part.

Let's stop blaming everything else (like video games) and start facing the problem head on.

And maybe we should start charging people whose guns are used in shootings (accidental/suicides/crimes) by someone else. There are way too many people who aren't responsibly storing their weapons.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Lets punish criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime. Any crime. Life in prison no parole or death penalty if you even possess a gun during the commission of a felony. No excuses. No exceptions. Gun crime goes down where this is practiced.

At first I didn't believe that any nation sentenced people to life in prison for merely possessing a gun during a felony. But then I recalled you live in Malaysia [or somewhere near there] and looked further into it.

You failed to mention that Malaysia doesn't just put you away for life or execute you for possessing a gun in the commission of a felony. They sentence you to life or execute you for merely possessing firearms or bullets.

3 Thai nationals, Malaysian to hang for firearms, bullets possession
08 March 2012

KUALA LUMPUR: Three Thai nationals and a Malaysian man were sentenced to death by the High Court today for possessing six firearms and 230 bullets in a hotel room five years ago.

Thai siblings Songsil Udtoom, 42, and Jukkis Udtoom, 45, Malaysian Loo Yeong Guang, 35, and his Thai girlfriend Phailin Noochang Phuek, 31, were found in possession of two Colt pistols, a Remington Rand pistol, a Sig Sauer pistol, a Glock pistol and an AR15 assault rifle in Room No. 6104, Pyramid Tower Hotel, Bandar Sunway, Subang Jaya, around 3.45am on Feb 4, 2007.

The four also committed a second offence when they had with them 230 bullets of various calibre at the same place.

Police arrested them in the hotel room on the same day on suspicion of involvement in a robbery at a Poh Kong outlet at Subang Parade which killed two security guards and an alleged robber on Feb 3 the day before.

Songsil, Jukkis, Loo and Phailin were first charged in the Petaling Jaya Magistrates Court on Feb 16, 2007, where they indicated they understood the two charges. No plea was recorded.

First day of trial in the Shah Alam High Court was on May 20, 2008. The court found the Prosecution had proven a prima facie against the four accused and they were ordered to enter their defence on Sept 21, 2011.

They were charged under Section 57(1) of the Internal Security Act 1960 which carries the death penalty upon conviction for possessing firearms and bullets in a safe zone as established by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

The area where they were arrested is a safe zone established as such back in May 15, 1969.

Judge Siti Khadijah S. Hassan Badjenid found that the Defence had failed to raise reasonable doubt in the Prosecution's case, stating that the Prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.

http://www.nst.com.my/latest/3-thai-...#ixzz2GV3guVAu

So sure. Let's play THAT game. The death penalty for just possessing a firearm or bullets.

Just like you say ... gun violence will surely be reduced.

Sometimes you have some really good ideas, thewitt.

[Acorn]

putting cops in school wouldnt do much. My highschool has at least 9 entry points that i know of off the top of my head. If i went there and actually looked around there is likely more. even if you had the resources to add 2 cops per school that still leaves 7 other ways to get into the school and shoot the classes near the door. by the time the cops made it across to the other side of the school the damage is already done.

They need another solution.

[Huntn]

Regarding armed guards in schools, I thought I heard a number like $2 Billion. Will this really make a difference? You'd probably want more than one guard and they would have to be really competent to make a difference. I'm imagining a scenario where the guard is the first one taken out.

[skunk]

Arm the kids.

[Bug-Creator]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Lets punish criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime. Any crime. Life in prison no parole or death penalty if you even possess a gun during the commission of a felony. No excuses. No exceptions. Gun crime goes down where this is practiced.

Well lets see....

Verdicts are allready much harder in the US as in western/central europe (and probraly some other places too). US crime rates are still higher than around here. How can that be ?

Simple: Criminals don't expect to be caught *doh*

They either think they are smarter than the average criminal or just don't think at all.

Automatic life/death penalty would only make them even more trigger-happy when they see cops approaching.

What has to be done is to make it harder to obtain a weapon illegaly and one step to that goal would be reducing the number of guns in circulation.

[DakotaGuy]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Sometimes you have some really good ideas, thewitt.

I don't see making stiffer penalties for using a gun in a criminal way a bad idea. If the penalties are stiff enough for using a gun the wrong way there is a chance you could impact the crime rate. How about requiring that all personal firearms are properly stored and if they are not and used in a crime then the owner could be held liable? I don't have an issue with liability. A good example is if I don't keep my fences in proper condition and my cows get out and you hit them with your car guess who is liable? Me. If I can prove that I did everything I could to properly maintain the fence then I am not liable, otherwise it is on me.

You love to criticize everyone else's ideas, but the only idea I seem to hear from you is a total ban. I don't know if your a person who has never handled a firearm in your life or has never shot, but I can promise there are millions of Americans that do legally enjoy our 2nd Amendment right. I hate to break it to you, but I'd put the odds of overturning the 2nd Amendment now or even 50 years down the road at 0%. With that said, I'm all for common sense ideas that will work. Stiffer penalties for using a gun in a crime is not a bad idea and might make criminals think twice. Whatever it has to be a combination of ideas.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by DakotaGuy

I don't see making stiffer penalties for using a gun in a criminal way a bad idea. If the penalties are stiff enough for using a gun the wrong way there is a chance you could impact the crime rate.

How do you punish someone who committed suicide? What about someone who doesn't take his psych meds?

Penalties aren't going to have any effect on them. Do we just need to accept Newtown shootings as the new normal?

[DakotaGuy]

Originally Posted by Ugg

How do you punish someone who committed suicide? What about someone who doesn't take his psych meds?

Penalties aren't going to have any effect on them. Do we just need to accept Newtown shootings as the new normal?

The only solution you seem to provide is to overturn the 2nd Amendment and have all guns seized. That is your solution correct? Good luck. You better get to working on that.