Who CAN you trust? Police? Military? Security Guards? Mom? Dad?... the Government?!?

All of the above are just costumes worn by crazy bi-pedal monkeys. [shakes head]

http://komonews.com/news/offbeat/securi ... t-students

This is not much different from the actions of teachers as of late.....

Most security guard positions do not pay that much, if you want to attract the best and brightest, you need to pay more money.

I say we let the private sector solve this one. Initiate a school voucher system, private schools with adequate security will pop up everywhere and educate our kids better and for less money.

Israel has had ongoing problems with internal security and terrorism. Anyone know how they have approached this problem?

And? Israel has mandatory military service, so it's not really a fair comparison.

I don't want some guy who can't make the cut for a real LEO agency "guarding" my children. I don't want teachers armed, either--maybe administrators, maybe, but with regards to the most recent shooting, would the "one good guy with a gun" solution really have worked? With the halls flooded with students and staff, fire alarm pulled, etc. could anyone not heavily trained and equally armed sight in and successfully target the shooter without incidental injury?

Which brings me back to the "Where the fuck was the SRO" question, for which no one seems to have an answer.

You might not have children, GWG. I do. I have literal skin in the game. Even so, I don't think that arming teachers and staff is the right answer.

I tend to agree that we should leave teachers and admin to do their job and hire trained security. I also think there is enough waste/redundancy in a lot of districts to shitcan a duplicative administrator position or three and use the savings to pay for security. The solution could even include a split between trained security and LEOs sharing the coverage. As a matter of fact it might be an excellent use for Reserve Sheriff's deputies in many jurisdictions. Of course for any of that to actually happen one would first have to get around the teachers unions and those who disagree with having good guys with guns protect schools. For the life of me I dont understand that mentality, we have armed guards protect banks and the like but they are no good for protecting innocent children? Is this kind of thinking just out of fear that those who are anti-gun would be "compromising" or caving to the pro-gun side who frequently mention this as part of the solution to these kinds of shootings? (rhetorical question).

It was just a simple question. No need for a personal attack here. And by the way we are raising my wife's eight year old grandson. So unless you know what you're talking about, just back off a bit please.

And no I was not assuming that the IDF was guarding every school in the country on the basis of compulsory military service.

Thanks Dan appreciate the link

Smart guns and schools: there is a video commentary on liveleak where a woman is touting "smart" guns that wouldn't be able to be fired when within a gun zone.

Another idea I read about today was a guy advocating spending $233 per student/perday on QUALIFIED security. His rationalization as applied to a larger school district was that the $100,000 per officer, training and equipment ($700,000) per year for a school with 3,100 students would provide the necessary protections for approximately an additional 2% of the current school budget.

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/how-to ... z57Ydd5jge

at least folks are thinking outside the box...

I think bringing back public hangings might produce the desired deterrent. (but I woke up cranky this morning)

Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that by not allowing people to arm themselves, their ability to protect and defend themselves and anyone they are charged with overseeing their safety, is compromised.

First.

Has no one here ever been responsible for security somewhere, and walked through, pretending to be the bad guy, to get the layout and possibilities down, so you could better see how to 'close the gaps in the security wall'?

It's typical of media not to ask questions, see something like this, make the worst possible assumptions, and run with it. Unfortunately it is also becoming all too common for people to just accept those assumptions. Because hey! The media said it was so, or at least "purported" it to be so.

I have no idea whether this guy was actually just pretending to shoot the kids for the fun of it, or if he had other thoughts in his head. Do you? Has anyone asked him? If they did, did they tell the truth in what they 'revealed'?

~~~~~~~


Who asked for a comparison? He asked what have they done to deal with this sort of problem. If they have done something to deal with the problem, we might be able to learn from that.


So you would choose your 'armed citizen in the school', based solely on pay grade?

Let me use your own value system way of addressing these sorts of things, (What has happened in your own life.) to address this. Most administrators that I have know are complete foofs. Completely self centered. Only concerned about number one. And 'the rules'. Most teachers that I have known are as protective of their students as they are of their own children. Guess which one I would want guarding my children.

As for successfully targeting the shooter without hitting anyone else: You have a choice... Try to shoot the shooter, or not. If you do, and you hit the shooter, but you hit someone else too... You have stopped the shooter. No one else is going to get dead after that. Whereas if you decide not to shoot the shooter because you MIGHT hit someone else... More people are going to get dead, because the shooter hasn't been stopped. See how that works? Maybe one or two more people get hurt, but the shooter is stopped. Versus not stopping the shooter, and guaranteed, more people are going to get injured or killed...

In a crazy situation like that, even the most expert and skilled marksman may have to take a chance, in order to stop the shooter.

Now lets say that no one does anything, but wait for the police to show up. More people getting injured or killed as they wait. And when the police show up, what do they do? Do they wait until they have the PERFECT shot so no one else gets hit? No. They take the shot because they know that until the shooter is stopped, more people are going to get killed or injured.



That... Is still a good question.

People are people. People in all walks of life, and at all levels/ranks, including law enforcement, military, security, teaching, grocery store managing, etc... Make bad decisions.

More, in these kinds of situations, most people have NO idea what they would actually DO. Not until they are actually THERE do they find out that they are or are not the heroes they think they will be.

Some are cowards. In every one of those professions.

And some will put their own life on the line in an instant. Maybe this SRO was a coward, and hid. Maybe they were in the bathroom. Maybe they were sleeping in some closet somewhere.

Thing is, any cop, military person, teacher, administrator, might have done the same.



Most of us here do have children or grandchildren in school. What makes your emotional opinions as a parent better than our logical ones?

I'd hate to see a world that is dominated solely by logic. Emotions are good. But they MUST be kept in check. When emotions rule... Well...

Emotional reactions and thinking leads to piss-poor decisions.

I have children, and I would have no issues with a teacher who supports the 2A and who is firearms trained that carries on school grounds. As a matter of fact, I would gladly welcome it.

I don't have a problem with allowing teachers to carry. I have a serious problem with advertising that fact and presuming that it is the singular fix against school shootings. All it would do would be to make staff more of a target for school shooters than they are already.

As to the thinking that there are somehow "redundant" administrators...ermm, no, not so much. My son's high school has just under 1500 students, with a principal, two assistant principals and two counselors (maybe four now) to serve all those students with all of their individual needs. Teachers? Each teacher (aside from special-needs student specialists) teaches five or six periods per day, with one additional planning period. That's ~175 students, on average, per day, cycling through the classroom. Not much slack, there, either. And it should be pointed out that this is in an extraordinarily well funded school district (BSD) with strong community and private sector support, both financial and in-kind.

It would be nice to have one simple solution (private sector! security guards! unemployed veterans! ad nauseam) to the problem of school shootings, but any solution is going to have to be multipronged and yes, will probably involve limiting access to firearms for some individuals.

So you really believe that a school shooter is more likely to run and gun for teachers that are armed as opposed to those who are unarmed? The reason these sick fucks target schools is because they know they will face little or no resistance. Throw a couple teachers on campus undercover carrying pistols and the playing field gets closer to even.

"allowing" "limiting" "restricting"

That is the language of slave and master.

"...land of the FREEEEEEE....(ahem, well... kinda. When you're doing the things that are allowed) and the home of the Brave....( we'll make sure to have security in place so you can feel that way... you know, since you're not allowed to be personally responsible for that anymore)"