gun control rant thread

PHeller wrote: I hate to say it, but armed school security officers and limited entry will probably be common, along with higher school taxes.

There should be more protection on schools. I mean a lot of banks, jewelry stores and museums are that well guarded. Shouldn't the future of our country be that well protected?

moparman76_69 wrote:

Grizz wrote: In reply to Beer Baron: Pearl River MS.

The one that started it all, so to speak. I was in High school, in MS when that one happened. The principal stopped him as he was trying to leave the school by drawing his .45 on him. Same sort of scenario though, he killed his mother then went to the school with a .30-.30.

I'm all for teachers carrying, but I would want to see some extensive training. Security's training out here is poor at best. Some of us spend more time at the range than others and actually know how to care for our weapon.

If I heard teachers were to start carrying with security or CCW training, I would say, "Absolutely not." I train with expert shooters (USCG Pistol Marksman, Police Sniper, USMC Sniper). Extensive training with them, and I'd be all for arming teachers.

Keep in mind, from that point on, the shooting hand, which is probably the writing hand has a whole new purpose which is to protect that weapon.

I really can't see the whole "teachers carrying" thing working out. What I can see is full-time armed (and of course properly trained) security personnel being part of the normal staff at schools nationwide.

1988RedT2 wrote: I really can't see the whole "teachers carrying" thing working out. What I can see is full-time armed (and of course properly trained) security personnel being part of the normal staff at schools nationwide.

They have those. Police officers. They call them SROs. They can't be everywhere at once. That would cost a ton.

N Sperlo wrote: They can't be everywhere at once.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

93EXCivic wrote:

PHeller wrote: I hate to say it, but armed school security officers and limited entry will probably be common, along with higher school taxes.

There should be more protection on schools. I mean a lot of banks, jewelry stores and museums are that well guarded. Shouldn't the future of our country be that well protected?

but those guarded places didn't cause a raise in your taxes

Private security may be the answer. The better it gets, the more expensive it gets. You're talking millions off dollars per school per year for low paid officers. Thats with minimal training. They'll need extensive.

N Sperlo wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: I really can't see the whole "teachers carrying" thing working out. What I can see is full-time armed (and of course properly trained) security personnel being part of the normal staff at schools nationwide.

They have those. Police officers. They call them SROs. They can't be everywhere at once. That would cost a ton.

They have them? My kids' schools don't have them. Maybe in the war zones they have them. What percentage of schools would you say have police officers on campus for the entire school day? I'm pretty sure it's small.

1988RedT2 wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: I really can't see the whole "teachers carrying" thing working out. What I can see is full-time armed (and of course properly trained) security personnel being part of the normal staff at schools nationwide.

They have those. Police officers. They call them SROs. They can't be everywhere at once. That would cost a ton.

They have them? My kids' schools don't have them. Maybe in the war zones they have them. What percentage of schools would you say have police officers on campus for the entire school day? I'm pretty sure it's small.

Indianpolis Public Schools have an entire police force, with cars and everything. The wife's school has them posted at the middle school and high schools all day every day and they are in a nice, upper-middle class neighborhood.

1988RedT2 wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: I really can't see the whole "teachers carrying" thing working out. What I can see is full-time armed (and of course properly trained) security personnel being part of the normal staff at schools nationwide.

They have those. Police officers. They call them SROs. They can't be everywhere at once. That would cost a ton.

They have them? My kids' schools don't have them. Maybe in the war zones they have them. What percentage of schools would you say have police officers on campus for the entire school day? I'm pretty sure it's small.

A lot of High Schools have them around here but the elementary and middle schools don't. I think it is more likely that they are there to arrest students for things they used to get a beating for than to protect them.

Bobzilla wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: I really can't see the whole "teachers carrying" thing working out. What I can see is full-time armed (and of course properly trained) security personnel being part of the normal staff at schools nationwide.

They have those. Police officers. They call them SROs. They can't be everywhere at once. That would cost a ton.

They have them? My kids' schools don't have them. Maybe in the war zones they have them. What percentage of schools would you say have police officers on campus for the entire school day? I'm pretty sure it's small.

Indianpolis Public Schools have an entire police force, with cars and everything. The wife's school has them posted at the middle school and high schools all day every day and they are in a nice, upper-middle class neighborhood.

All the St Louis County public schools have SROs and the Ferguson-Florissant School District has a fleet of unarmed security.

St Louis City has unarmed security at all public schools I know of and they always have one armed officer. They actually have a Class B law enforcement certification. The same as the sheriff's deputies and any other law enforcement such as building inspectors and liquor control agents etc whom are under the control of the city. Police officers have Class A certifications.

So you're saying it's worse than I thought?

the SRO's around here ( at least at the middle school, that we can see from the highway) are there only part time ... the elementary school and the at risk hs don't seem to have them ... at least you can't see the cars ... the regular hs has a long enough drive ( over a hill) that you can't see

1988RedT2 wrote: So you're saying it's worse than I thought?

Well, some of the city schools are paramount to a war zone... I really don't want to gross anyone out with stories.

PHeller wrote: along with higher school taxes.

Effin great......in rural areas farmers pay the bulk of property taxes that go towards schools. I'd rather my tax dollars went to train people versus pay people to sit on their arse all day fapping to little girls.

MrJoshua wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: In reply to JoeyM: This attack was on kindergarten students. The sort of person with the temperament to be a kindergarten teacher is almost certainly not the sort of person with the temperament to carry and be prepared to take a life.

I strongly disagree with this part of your post. Most Kindergarten teachers are momma bears to the n'th degree. Yes they love to nurture, but they would shoot an army of attackers if it would protect their children.

Yeah I would have a hard time believing that te teacher that hid her kids in cabinets and closets before the gunman came in a) wouldn't have had time to retrieve her gun from a locked drawer, and b) wouldn't have blasted the guy if given the chance.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we require teachers to be armed, just that they have the option to carry if they so desire. Even still, I doubt many would take the option to carry anyways, but some might.

1988RedT2 wrote: I really can't see the whole "teachers carrying" thing working out. What I can see is full-time armed (and of course properly trained) security personnel being part of the normal staff at schools nationwide.

Another alternative: armed parents

“Each father, including me, is on a mandatory, rotating duty-schedule. Each of us is thus ‘on-duty’ several days each month, all day. Yes, we have to take days off from work. We are posted in the back of each classroom, visibly armed with both an AR and a pistol. All our weapons are constantly loaded and ready, and can be plainly seen as such. Each child thus knows and understands that there is always a father, their own or that of one of one of their schoolmates, there with them in the classroom all the time, and he is able, willing, and committed to defending them with his life.

In reply to JoeyM:

Jesus. Hell no!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you met most parents?!?!

N Sperlo wrote: Private security may be the answer. The better it gets, the more expensive it gets. You're talking millions off dollars per school per year for low paid officers. Thats with minimal training. They'll need extensive.

foreign aid money? We could stop giving funds to other places.....

JoeyM wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: Private security may be the answer. The better it gets, the more expensive it gets. You're talking millions off dollars per school per year for low paid officers. Thats with minimal training. They'll need extensive.

foreign aid money? We could stop giving funds to other places.....

Truer words were never spoken.

Conquest351 wrote:

JoeyM wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: Private security may be the answer. The better it gets, the more expensive it gets. You're talking millions off dollars per school per year for low paid officers. Thats with minimal training. They'll need extensive.

foreign aid money? We could stop giving funds to other places.....

Truer words were never spoken.

my thoughts exactly.......berkeley the world

yamaha wrote:

Conquest351 wrote:

JoeyM wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: Private security may be the answer. The better it gets, the more expensive it gets. You're talking millions off dollars per school per year for low paid officers. Thats with minimal training. They'll need extensive.

foreign aid money? We could stop giving funds to other places.....

Truer words were never spoken.

my thoughts exactly.......berkeley the world

It's not our responsibility to bail everyone else out. We really should focus more on some problems here. Don't cut it all out, no way. That's how we are still viewed as a helpful country and a helpful people. But tone it back a bit. We really need to spend more on our own country and our own problems and share some of the excess with the rest of the world. Not the other way around. But what do I know. I'm just some dude...

JoeyM wrote: Another alternative: armed parents

“Each father, including me, is on a mandatory, rotating duty-schedule. Each of us is thus ‘on-duty’ several days each month, all day. Yes, we have to take days off from work. We are posted in the back of each classroom, visibly armed with both an AR and a pistol. All our weapons are constantly loaded and ready, and can be plainly seen as such. Each child thus knows and understands that there is always a father, their own or that of one of one of their schoolmates, there with them in the classroom all the time, and he is able, willing, and committed to defending them with his life.

I suppose there might be some flexibility depending on ages, but I don't think that's a good idea. There is a small but extant chance of crazy showing up at a particular school. But the sight of an armed guard/dad every day is not an impression I want to make about the world on a kid.

There are bullies, there is news, there are plenty of ways that as a kid grows up they learn that the world isn't all sunshine and birthday parties.

I guess it comes back, at least in some ways, to that difference in how guns are perceived. To me, walking around visibly armed is a sort of threat. Even if it's reasonably clear that it's only a threat of "if you do x, I'm going to hurt you", it's still a constant reminder of escalation and violence.

For most of the conflicts a kid needs to work out, I don't think that's the first idea that should be reinforced. There does come a time where that's the answer, but for most conflicts (i.e. the >99.9999% that will happen in a kid's life) that don't involve a crazy, armed person, I'd rather reinforce a thought process that goes through reasoning, discussion, and possibly retreat, with injuring your antagonist coming as a last resort.

No perfect answer, but if you had millions of kids sitting through their school day with a parent (or a guard) at the back of the room just sitting there with guns, that's going to have an effect on how they think about conflict. And for >99.9999% of them, the situation that calls for it will never happen.

I recognize that reasonable people may believe that there will be no negative impact from having guns visible every day in the classroom. I respectfully disagree.

Another thought that just occurred to me about that sort of psychological impact: Anybody else about my age (born early '70s) spend years having dreams about incoming nuclear missiles? Thanks, cold war politics. If you have a guy with an AR-15 in the back of the classroom every day, I'm not at all sure what you're going to engender is a sense of security. It says "things could come down to a firefight any time now."

93EXCivic wrote: In reply to JoeyM: Jesus. Hell no!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you met most parents?!?!

I'm just pointing out that this is already happening at some private schools.