Kansas arms schools

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Lil devils x:

SimpleThunda':

cthulhuspawn82:
This should have been in place all along. School shootings consists of a maniac shooting people like fish in a barrel until police arrive. The moment armed resistance arrives, the shooting ends. It only makes sense to have armed guards/teachers at the school.

You put them at the schools. Next thing you know people in some office building get massacred and you put them at the office buildings. This idea can only horribly spiral out of control up to a point where everywhere you go there's armed individuals (albeit professionals) with guns.

A bad, bad idea, in my opinion.

You do realize there are many many businesses here that already have armed guards don't you? Office buildings are currently just a few of them where armed guards may be present. Cops are already for hire to guard buildings as it is. Many businesses already hire guards, this is nothing new, and has been around since before the days of the railroads. They used to guard stage coaches and such, they never went away, just only "elite" businesses can afford them.

I am really surprised people didn't know that already.

That only goes to prove my point, being:

We don't want a world with armed guards on every corner of the street.

ESPECIALLY not armed guards that are a part of the government.

Skeleon:

Lil devils x:
Yes, that problem has to be addressed, and if we reduce the harm being done, I see less people thinking they need "protection", thus reducing the demand.

Discounting the anecdotes, I think we're in agreement here. I certainly think your system needs fixing if it's really in that bad a shape. And perhaps overzealous opposition to gun control will be lowered as well, as will the cries for increasing authoritarianism. On the other hand - and this is something I have mentioned a few times before - I don't really see that happening. Too much money is made from the fear and the broken system, isn't it? Too many profit-incentives are based on people being scared for their lives.

I see the "authortarism" being in telling them they cannot do anything about it. Do you not see making that decision for them as being more "authortarian" than giving them the freedom of choice to decide for themselves?

I can really only repeat that even the proposed gun legislation would not tell them "they cannot do anything about it", since it limits the types of guns that can be newly bought but doesn't remove them, not even those that would be covered under it. This whole bit sort of reminds me of that lady from the "independent women group" or whatever who told an anecdote about guns keeping a mother and her children safe, only to be stumped the moment an investigator in the hearing pointed out the weapon she used wouldn't be affected by the new legislation whatsoever. The anecdote kind of ends up working against her own point.

Anyway, where is the "freedom of choice to decide for themselves" in getting additional overseers added to one's school without being asked about it? In increasing authority and control on the ground? You keep going off on the gun-tangent when I keep telling you I'm making a point about the increasing authoritarianism with regards to guards, cops, cameras, frisking, constant observation etc. that reduce your freedom for the sake of (imagined) safety.

EDIT:

SimpleThunda':

cthulhuspawn82:
This should have been in place all along. School shootings consists of a maniac shooting people like fish in a barrel until police arrive. The moment armed resistance arrives, the shooting ends. It only makes sense to have armed guards/teachers at the school.

You put them at the schools. Next thing you know people in some office building get massacred and you put them at the office buildings. This idea can only horribly spiral out of control up to a point where everywhere you go there's armed individuals (albeit professionals) with guns.

A bad, bad idea, in my opinion.

Yes, that's one aspect of it. And while it could be considered a slippery slope argument, I don't think it qualifies as a slippery slope fallacy considering the way things are actually going.

They have already had cameras, metal detectors, armed police officers, searches, frisking in schools a very long time now already in many schools across the United States, that is actually old news.

Since the columbine shooting, they have started arming teachers and staff here as well and recently been adding RFID to the ID tags students are required to wear.

I see bringing in the police as more "authortarian" than allowing teachers and administration to volunteer for the " Guardian program" where they take on the responsibility to defend the students and staff themselves.

The idea that this is a "slippery slope" when this has already been going on a very long time, seems odd to me. Were people not already aware that this has existed in the US for a very long time already?

I see it as more authortarian to deny someone the basic right to defend themselves and those they care about. I would see it as more authortarian to say that you have to be a police officer to be able to do that.

With volunteers no one is being forced to do anything. The schools should be allowed to choose for themselves.

SimpleThunda':

Lil devils x:

SimpleThunda':

You put them at the schools. Next thing you know people in some office building get massacred and you put them at the office buildings. This idea can only horribly spiral out of control up to a point where everywhere you go there's armed individuals (albeit professionals) with guns.

A bad, bad idea, in my opinion.

You do realize there are many many businesses here that already have armed guards don't you? Office buildings are currently just a few of them where armed guards may be present. Cops are already for hire to guard buildings as it is. Many businesses already hire guards, this is nothing new, and has been around since before the days of the railroads. They used to guard stage coaches and such, they never went away, just only "elite" businesses can afford them.

I am really surprised people didn't know that already.

That only goes to prove my point, being:

We don't want a world with armed guards on every corner of the street.

ESPECIALLY not armed guards that are a part of the government.

Yes, but it has been that way here since before there were cars. There is nothing illegal about having armed guards at your residence, business, or even following you around. That is perfectly legal in the US. It is not uncommon here, where I live, to see men walking around with firearms. Holstered walking around shopping, strapped to the back on horseback, or walking around with them. If you call the police here because someone has a gun, they respond" are they pointing it at anyone or threatening to shoot anyone? Guns are not illegal you know."

Yes, it is that common here, and hearing gunshots everyday is normal. I know people from elsewhere have a hard time understanding that, but that is how it has been here for a very very long time. You don't just stop that over night.

Lil devils x:
You do realize there are many many businesses here that already have armed guards don't you? Office buildings are currently just a few of them where armed guards may be present. Cops are already for hire to guard buildings as it is. Many businesses already hire guards, this is nothing new, and has been around since before the days of the railroads. They used to guard stage coaches and such, they never went away, just only "elite" businesses can afford them.

I am really surprised people didn't know that already.

Lil devils x:
They have already had cameras, metal detectors, armed police officers, searches, frisking in schools a very long time now already in many schools across the United States, that is actually old news.
[...]
The idea that this is a "slippery slope" when this has already been going on a very long time, seems odd to me. Were people not already aware that this has existed in the US for a very long time already?

You appear to really not get it. Yeah, we're aware of those facts. But you mention them as though they were arguments in favour of further increasing authoritarianism? Like, "it's normal to live in what basically amounts to a police state, so adding on top of that doesn't really hurt"? When my point in particular is that the USA is already very bad in that regard? Furthermore, it's still a slippery slope if you are already partway down the hill but you can go down even further. And I see the USA continuing to go down further, further, further.

Lil devils x:

Well yes, I have lived in what most would consider a war zone:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pleasant%20grove&defid=1712233

Ah, I guess that explains your problems with the cops in your area, but at least try to remember that not all areas have bad cops. I know for a fact that if cops in my state (Kansas, in case you couldnt tell from the OP) did even 1/4 of what you say they have done in your area, they would be kicked out the the force so fast they would get whiplash. However, considering your area, I would agree its smarter to have the teachers carrying and keep one eye on the cops at all times. As for here, I think the guards are a better idea than armed teachers, but am not going to throw a big fit if Emporia and others take it further and let teachers carry.

Skeleon:
Plus, you're naive if you don't think they'll enforce other things while they're at it... especially in a place like Kansas.

And WHAT Exactly do you mean by this right here?

Skeleon:

Lil devils x:
You do realize there are many many businesses here that already have armed guards don't you? Office buildings are currently just a few of them where armed guards may be present. Cops are already for hire to guard buildings as it is. Many businesses already hire guards, this is nothing new, and has been around since before the days of the railroads. They used to guard stage coaches and such, they never went away, just only "elite" businesses can afford them.

I am really surprised people didn't know that already.

Lil devils x:
They have already had cameras, metal detectors, armed police officers, searches, frisking in schools a very long time now already in many schools across the United States, that is actually old news.
[...]
The idea that this is a "slippery slope" when this has already been going on a very long time, seems odd to me. Were people not already aware that this has existed in the US for a very long time already?

You appear to really not get it. Yeah, we're aware of those facts. But you mention them as though they were arguments in favour of further increasing authoritarianism? Like, "it's normal to live in what basically amounts to a police state, so adding on top of that doesn't really hurt"? When my point in particular is that the USA is already very bad in that regard? Furthermore, it's still a slippery slope if you are already partway down the hill but you can go down even further. And I see the USA continuing to go down further, further, further.

But how is allowing teachers to volunteer " authoritarianism"? They are not "Officers of the court" they will not be using firearms to "force" anyone to do anything. They have them "just in case" they need to stop a gunman from killing everyone, and hope they never have to be put into that situation. There is a huge difference bewteen using arms against your own people and using arms to defend yourself and others from attackers. It would be authortarian to force them to, and not allow them to volunteer, or tell them they cannot do so if they so wish to, making the decison for them and not giving them the CHOICE is authoritarian, not the other way around.

BOOM headshot65:

Lil devils x:

Well yes, I have lived in what most would consider a war zone:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pleasant%20grove&defid=1712233

Ah, I guess that explains your problems with the cops in your area, but at least try to remember that not all areas have bad cops. I know for a fact that if cops in my state (Kansas, in case you couldnt tell from the OP) did even 1/4 of what you say they have done in your area, they would be kicked out the the force so fast they would get whiplash. However, considering your area, I would agree its smarter to have the teachers carrying and keep one eye on the cops at all times. As for here, I think the guards are a better idea than armed teachers, but am not going to throw a big fit if Emporia and others take it further and let teachers carry.

Skeleon:
Plus, you're naive if you don't think they'll enforce other things while they're at it... especially in a place like Kansas.

And WHAT Exactly do you mean by this right here?

The bad cops were not when I lived in the grove, they were when I moved to the wealthiest county per sq ft in the state. The gangs were in the grove, digging up guns on the playground.. the cops would not even come down there most the time.

Lil devils x:

SimpleThunda':

Lil devils x:

You do realize there are many many businesses here that already have armed guards don't you? Office buildings are currently just a few of them where armed guards may be present. Cops are already for hire to guard buildings as it is. Many businesses already hire guards, this is nothing new, and has been around since before the days of the railroads. They used to guard stage coaches and such, they never went away, just only "elite" businesses can afford them.

I am really surprised people didn't know that already.

That only goes to prove my point, being:

We don't want a world with armed guards on every corner of the street.

ESPECIALLY not armed guards that are a part of the government.

Yes, but it has been that way here since before there were cars. There is nothing illegal about having armed guards at your residence, business, or even following you around. That is perfectly legal in the US. It is not uncommon here, where I live, to see men walking around with firearms. Holstered walking around shopping, strapped to the back on horseback, or walking around with them. If you call the police here because someone has a gun, they respond" are they pointing it at anyone or threatening to shoot anyone? Guns are not illegal you know."

Yes, it is that common here, and hearing gunshots everyday is normal. I know people from elsewhere have a hard time understanding that, but that is how it has been here for a very very long time. You don't just stop that over night.

It's not about whether it's legal or not. It's about whether that is the kind of society we want to live in.

I don't mind gunownership, but I mind the fact that the government involves itself too much with public security up to the point that you have armed policemen on every corner and in every building.

That's the kind of "big brother is watching"-scenario that I really wouldn't like to see.

Lil devils x:
But how is allowing teachers to volunteer " authoritarianism"?

Do the people there have any choice in the matter? Or are they just presented with armed guards and oversight? I.e., the parents? The students? Are privacy rights respected or ignored in favour of some safety?
"Just in case" is such a lovely way to get started on the oppression. Or, since we agree that (at least parts of) the USA are far ahead in that regard, a lovely way to continue.
I don't understand this obsession with and acceptance of increased oversight. Especially in addition to all that other crap. And let me remind you that you were the one to bring up the metal detectors and all that other authoritarian stuff already in place. It's only that you seem to be okay with it and thus fail to understand my appalled reaction.
Where's your freedom? You seem to be happy to see living conditions go further and further towards living in a prison where every move is controlled and observed.
Perhaps it is necessary to remind you that this is just the latest in a long line of safety-over-liberty ideas proposed and installed. On its own, one might think of it as comparatively benign (although the necessity for it on its own is already far from benign), but if you put it all together? It's awful. I'd hate to live like that.
I guess there's no way to convince you of anything. Again, that whole cultural divide thing. But I really feel the need to at least point out how I think about such practices.

BOOM headshot65:
And WHAT Exactly do you mean by this right here?

Big government Social Conservatism. You know, morality police. Kansas isn't exactly known for being big on individualism and things that fall outside the norm.

I am getting very confused with how the US works now. How does a country with quite possibly one of the most anti-authoritarian population of Western civilization end up with this?

Skeleon:

Lil devils x:
But how is allowing teachers to volunteer " authoritarianism"?

Do the people there have any choice in the matter? Or are they just presented with armed guards and oversight? I.e., the parents? The students? Are privacy rights respected or ignored in favour of some safety?
"Just in case" is such a lovely way to get started on the oppression. Or, since we agree that (at least parts of) the USA are far ahead in that regard, a lovely way to continue.
I don't understand this obsession with and acceptance of increased oversight. Especially in addition to all that other crap. And let me remind you that you were the one to bring up the metal detectors and all that other authoritarian stuff already in place. It's only that you seem to be okay with it and thus fail to understand my appalled reaction.
Where's your freedom? You seem to be happy to see living conditions go further and further towards living in a prison where every move is controlled and observed.
Perhaps it is necessary to remind you that this is just the latest in a long line of safety-over-liberty ideas proposed and installed. On its own, one might think of it as comparatively benign (although the necessity for it on its own is already far from benign), but if you put it all together? It's awful. I'd hate to live like that.
I guess there's no way to convince you of anything. Again, that whole cultural divide thing. But I really feel the need to at least point out how I think about such practices.

BOOM headshot65:
And WHAT Exactly do you mean by this right here?

Big government Social Conservatism. You know, morality police. Kansas isn't exactly known for being big on individualism and things that fall outside the norm.

The big issue is there is no protection from those that wish to inflict harm on others. As long as there is no protection to prevent those that are harming others from doing so, there has to be some way for one to defend themselves. Here, even prison does not stop hits from being carried out on the outside while the person who wishes to harm is on " the inside". I woke up to a phone cord around my neck, ran for my life, never went back and the cops refused to keep him in jail until he found me, was trying to finish me off in my sleep at my new apartment and my neighbor saw him and confronted him so he stabbed him instead. My employer, parents, neighbor all had restraining orders as well, but they would not do anything to prevent him from harming me, my neighbor did that for them.

This is how the system is broken, there is NO victim protection, there is no current way to stop someone that wishes to harm others from doing so, until there is, people are forced into a "us or them" situation, and that is a very bad place to be. The justice system is broken, there is no justice, there is no protection. In school, I was not worried about the teachers harming me, I was woried about the football team who liked to rape girls in the parkinglot. I was worried that the guy who they shoved in a trash bag and kicked and beat and rolled down a hill in the trash can would kill everyone with the gun he brought to school and waved around in the gym.

I do not fear teachers, even if they are armed, because the teachers were the ones trying to keep us safe from "the other guys".

The oppression has already been here, from both law enforcement and the thugs ( oh yea-they are one in the same) We are just trying to figure out how to deal with the current situation we have. I would love if we could actually solve the situation rather than be forced to "deal with it", but as long as the society we remain in is selfish and cruel, and we haven't figured out how to truly solve that I don't see we have any real choice in the matter.

I agree with much of what you say, I don't want it to be this way anymore than you do. However, I have been forced to accept the current reality of the situation, and realize that if we don't defend ourselves, no one else is going to and people just die. That is how it goes. I would rather it be "the guys shooting up the place" than the teachers and kids.

Liberty was killed a long time ago, we now live in the $500,000 fine if you tamper with your own property and have kids shooting up schools and neighborhoods while the cops mace and beat the salutatorian of your class while shoving his face in gravel. What a beautiful world we have created. Now we just have to figure out how to survive it.

Lil devils x:

No, the " strategic locations" cannot be seen. They built in gun safes inside the building itself to be undetectable to the human eye, and the only people aware of their locations are the people directly involved in the program and the police, fire and school adminstrators, and did not allow that information to be made public. I think they did a good job doing it that way. School administration has conceal to carry on their person, teachers have them secured in hidden gun safes.

Simply because a police officer has been trained, does not mean they have earned the " more responsible" or " better judgement" requirements moreso than school faculty. The more educated among the police force and local law enforecment are investigators and prosecutors, judges, and the schools could not possibly afford to put them as a " security guard". Those hired out as security were the guys on drugs in school cutting each other with razor blades.. I don;t think they really should be placed in the schools. Now we do have quite a few " troops to teachers" from the program that would be much better suited for the job, and they would not have to hire additional staff when they are already trained to do both, and are more educated and responsible than the current beat cops. That would allow districts to spend more on education and less on hiring the old thugs from highschool to come in and show off their guns while they smoke dope with the kiddies while banging 13 year olds. (like my schools old DARE officer very much liked to do.)

Teachers guns are in gunsafes, Administrators have them on their person. Many of our teachers and faculty are military due to the troops to teachers programs, our schools are staffed with more educated, more responsible people than our current police force. You don't think cops are thugs? HAHA! really? How many you know from school that are " on the force" now? EVERY SINGLE GUY I KNOW THAT TURNED INTO A COP WAS A CRIMINAL/THUG IN HIGHSCHOOL. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

The reality is no one wants the job, those with education go for better jobs and would not be assigned security anywhere. The guys who wanted to save the world that I grew up with went military, FBI, or became Judges and attorneys and one is currently working whitehouse security. None of those guys become " cops" they go on to better things. The guys who become cops are the ones who couldn't cut it elsewhere here. Putting them in school only results in much more serious problems. I would rather train those who have already proven to be responsible rather than attempt to train a thug to be responsible.

This isn't just about " cops losing their cool" I had an Uncle that used to sell from the evidence room. MY ex who tried to kill me was in school to be a cop before he went to prison instead. I had a sexual harrassment charge and restraining order against the local sheriff at the age of 17 because he groped me at work in front of my employer, customers and didn't even care and kept trying to do it again, my employer had to call the cops on the sheriff to make him leave! Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate what those guys do for us, ( except for the sherif of course) but I am not going to pretend for a second that they are someone they are not. Them having a badge and a gun doesn't change who they are, and we should never forget that. When people suddenly think that changes them into a different person that should be " trusted" is when you have 24 yr old guys placed in schools with guns that sleep with 13 yr odl girls and smoke dope with them in their squad cars, while his " partner cop" on campus plays "look out".

When having to choose between " people" best suited for a job, I will take the guy I knew in school that always took up for those less fortunate, was on the student council, served in the airforce, then decided to come home and teach at the school he grew up in vs the guy who was stealing lawnmowers and beer and almost dropped out of highschool any day.
In addition, we would be spending more on education and less on "guards". There are already plenty of very qualified and responsible teachers coming from the troops to teachers program nationwide, we should place them for what they will best be suited for. If we must hire additional staff, at least let them be useful.

Strategic locations means either hallways or classrooms, unless under something like a cabinet or desk over it the safe will be able to be seen. And out of your curiosity did you every hear about which teacher was sleeping with a student or having an affair or drinking on the job? I heard all three about teachers at my school and then some, now think about that. There jobs or their place in the community is at stake and yet that info gets out, those safes will be known about. Also to be clear I don't want you to have some delusions about safes that can't be seen unless you know there there. It doesn't work like that someone will see them.

First off you experience with security guards is fucked up but not the rule. And while security guards might be the rejects of the police force sometimes they wouldn't be able to have a sordid past like your suggesting which is why there where heavy background check and evaluations proposed in the law above.

"Now we do have quite a few " troops to teachers" from the program that would be much better suited for the job, and they would not have to hire additional staff when they are already trained to do both, and are more educated and responsible than the current beat cops"

Soldiers trained for a war zone shouldn't be used as security guard unless they've already gone through the process of getting acclimated to the duties of a cop. Once again specialization comes in and cops specialize in dispensing justice in a civilian environment every day which is the on the job training you need for being a security guard.

Your using far too much personal experience to hold a valid argument regarding police officers are thugs statement.

If someone is going to perform a school shooting knowing there are guns in the school knowing those gun are in which locations and knowing which teachers have combinations to those safes you go kill those teachers first. So a normal gun crime where one dies from lets say gang violence turns into at least two dead if not a shoot out.

And again with personal anecdotes, you have a strong bias against security guards is there a point for me to argue with you about this?

dmase:

Lil devils x:

No, the " strategic locations" cannot be seen. They built in gun safes inside the building itself to be undetectable to the human eye, and the only people aware of their locations are the people directly involved in the program and the police, fire and school adminstrators, and did not allow that information to be made public. I think they did a good job doing it that way. School administration has conceal to carry on their person, teachers have them secured in hidden gun safes.

Simply because a police officer has been trained, does not mean they have earned the " more responsible" or " better judgement" requirements moreso than school faculty. The more educated among the police force and local law enforecment are investigators and prosecutors, judges, and the schools could not possibly afford to put them as a " security guard". Those hired out as security were the guys on drugs in school cutting each other with razor blades.. I don;t think they really should be placed in the schools. Now we do have quite a few " troops to teachers" from the program that would be much better suited for the job, and they would not have to hire additional staff when they are already trained to do both, and are more educated and responsible than the current beat cops. That would allow districts to spend more on education and less on hiring the old thugs from highschool to come in and show off their guns while they smoke dope with the kiddies while banging 13 year olds. (like my schools old DARE officer very much liked to do.)

Teachers guns are in gunsafes, Administrators have them on their person. Many of our teachers and faculty are military due to the troops to teachers programs, our schools are staffed with more educated, more responsible people than our current police force. You don't think cops are thugs? HAHA! really? How many you know from school that are " on the force" now? EVERY SINGLE GUY I KNOW THAT TURNED INTO A COP WAS A CRIMINAL/THUG IN HIGHSCHOOL. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

The reality is no one wants the job, those with education go for better jobs and would not be assigned security anywhere. The guys who wanted to save the world that I grew up with went military, FBI, or became Judges and attorneys and one is currently working whitehouse security. None of those guys become " cops" they go on to better things. The guys who become cops are the ones who couldn't cut it elsewhere here. Putting them in school only results in much more serious problems. I would rather train those who have already proven to be responsible rather than attempt to train a thug to be responsible.

This isn't just about " cops losing their cool" I had an Uncle that used to sell from the evidence room. MY ex who tried to kill me was in school to be a cop before he went to prison instead. I had a sexual harrassment charge and restraining order against the local sheriff at the age of 17 because he groped me at work in front of my employer, customers and didn't even care and kept trying to do it again, my employer had to call the cops on the sheriff to make him leave! Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate what those guys do for us, ( except for the sherif of course) but I am not going to pretend for a second that they are someone they are not. Them having a badge and a gun doesn't change who they are, and we should never forget that. When people suddenly think that changes them into a different person that should be " trusted" is when you have 24 yr old guys placed in schools with guns that sleep with 13 yr odl girls and smoke dope with them in their squad cars, while his " partner cop" on campus plays "look out".

When having to choose between " people" best suited for a job, I will take the guy I knew in school that always took up for those less fortunate, was on the student council, served in the airforce, then decided to come home and teach at the school he grew up in vs the guy who was stealing lawnmowers and beer and almost dropped out of highschool any day.
In addition, we would be spending more on education and less on "guards". There are already plenty of very qualified and responsible teachers coming from the troops to teachers program nationwide, we should place them for what they will best be suited for. If we must hire additional staff, at least let them be useful.

Strategic locations means either hallways or classrooms, unless under something like a cabinet or desk over it the safe will be able to be seen. And out of your curiosity did you every hear about which teacher was sleeping with a student or having an affair or drinking on the job? I heard all three about teachers at my school and then some, now think about that. There jobs or their place in the community is at stake and yet that info gets out, those safes will be known about. Also to be clear I don't want you to have some delusions about safes that can't be seen unless you know there there. It doesn't work like that someone will see them.

First off you experience with security guards is fucked up but not the rule. And while security guards might be the rejects of the police force sometimes they wouldn't be able to have a sordid past like your suggesting which is why there where heavy background check and evaluations proposed in the law above.

"Now we do have quite a few " troops to teachers" from the program that would be much better suited for the job, and they would not have to hire additional staff when they are already trained to do both, and are more educated and responsible than the current beat cops"

Soldiers trained for a war zone shouldn't be used as security guard unless they've already gone through the process of getting acclimated to the duties of a cop. Once again specialization comes in and cops specialize in dispensing justice in a civilian environment every day which is the on the job training you need for being a security guard.

Your using far too much personal experience to hold a valid argument regarding police officers are thugs statement.

If someone is going to perform a school shooting knowing there are guns in the school knowing those gun are in which locations and knowing which teachers have combinations to those safes you go kill those teachers first. So a normal gun crime where one dies from lets say gang violence turns into at least two dead if not a shoot out.

And again with personal anecdotes, you have a strong bias against security guards is there a point for me to argue with you about this?

LOL! the automechanics teacher was smoking pot with the kids, geometry teacher was drunk half the time, and the girls PE coach was caught in bed with a student. Good thing none of them would qualify for the program eh?

They have more requirements on faculty to be armed at the school than they do cops and teachers combined. They took it very seriously, even requiring character references and multiple psychiatric evaluations, as well as extensive written and physical tests. As long as they keep up those requirements as they did when first implemented, it would be better than anything else we have available. No one outside the school, unless directly and currently involved in the program, itself could know the locations, or know the identity of the teacher who have been trained, or know the current codes or would be capable of disarming the alarm on the safe.
as for anecodotes.. they didn't just do this to me...
Rockwall's timeline of corruption:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/rockwall-tx/TQKJFDJ6761VQ2VFC
They don;t even "punish" the bad guys here:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20100309-Ex-Rockwall-district-attorney-Ray-Sumrow-5065.ece

Our politicians are corrupt, our judges are corrupt, our DA's are corrupt, why would you think our police wouldn't be? This isn't just an "isolated incident". This is a widespread systematic problem. Funny how they won't show you the number of law enforcement arrested each year, though most never even get arrested, instead they get "covered up" or " found out later" but they don't even get charged, instead they "resign" or " retire". Hell I know it was the sherif here that was having sex with the female prisoners, yet he had the new kid they just hired take the fall with the feds, when it was impossible for it to be the new kid when it had been going on long before the new kid was even hired. That sheriff is STILL in office. As for the DA.. they had him take the fall on that minor BS because he was actually illegally prosecuting people and taking their land and there were people picketing him on the streets, so they " took him out of the picture" but never actually charged him with what he was supposed to be charged with in the first place.

If you google any city and "corruption" or " police officer arrested" you can see it for yourself. This is far from isolated.

Lil devils x:

LOL! the automechanics teacher was smoking pot with the kids, geometry teacher was drunk half the time, and the girls PE coach was caught in bed with a student. Good thing none of them would qualify for the program eh?

They have more requirements on faculty to be armed at the school than they do cops and teachers combined. They took it very seriously, even requiring character references and multiple psychiatric evaluations, as well as extensive written and physical tests. As long as they keep up those requirements as they did when first implemented, it would be better than anything else we have available. No one outside the school, unless directly and currently involved in the program, itself could know the locations, or know the identity of the teacher who have been trained, or know the current codes or would be capable of disarming the alarm on the safe.

Administrators while I agree are probably better than teachers in the character capacity they are humans. And their job isn't pulling a gun on people. Everyday a cop wheres a gun is prepared to use it and has lived through experiences where that may have been necessary, just being in intense situations and not using it is a reason cops should be used, they have everyday experience. And unless and administrator has that experience or gone through a police academy then they aren't qualified. Also as previously stated all of the criteria for a security guard to carry a gun would have to be filled. However your bias won't allow you to think a security guard could qualify for carry a gun.

First a school board has to agree to allow guns in the school then approve those teachers to use them. School board meetings are open to the general public and kids would know who has the code to the safe. And as far as putting the safes in it's not as easy as just throwing it in a wall in fact you can't do that with the current structure of any school I've been in. Your gonna need a construction crew and the safe will need to be put IN the floor, and I'm assuming it's a small safe big enough to fit a glock.

You can't put it in the walls because anyone with a sledge hammer can bust through those white bricks and pull the safe out, you also couldn't attach it to the girders because that would be difficult and probably be situational basis(the girders would put there with the thought of structural support not what is the prime location for putting a 100lb safe that can't be removed on). So it's the floor and only the first floor because I don't believe it's structurally safe to put one in the floor of an office without a shit ton of concrete under it. So from the construction everyone will know Mr. so and so is have construction done in his office where is the safe going to be? The floor, and is he going to put a filing cabinet on top if it? Well lets hope he has enough room to move that filing cabinet and get to the gun in time. Or a security guard near the lobby can have his in his holster ready to fire when necessary.

dmase:

Lil devils x:

LOL! the automechanics teacher was smoking pot with the kids, geometry teacher was drunk half the time, and the girls PE coach was caught in bed with a student. Good thing none of them would qualify for the program eh?

They have more requirements on faculty to be armed at the school than they do cops and teachers combined. They took it very seriously, even requiring character references and multiple psychiatric evaluations, as well as extensive written and physical tests. As long as they keep up those requirements as they did when first implemented, it would be better than anything else we have available. No one outside the school, unless directly and currently involved in the program, itself could know the locations, or know the identity of the teacher who have been trained, or know the current codes or would be capable of disarming the alarm on the safe.

Administrators while I agree are probably better than teachers in the character capacity they are humans. And their job isn't pulling a gun on people. Everyday a cop wheres a gun is prepared to use it and has lived through experiences where that may have been necessary, just being in intense situations and not using it is a reason cops should be used, they have everyday experience. And unless and administrator has that experience or gone through a police academy then they aren't qualified. Also as previously stated all of the criteria for a security guard to carry a gun would have to be filled. However your bias won't allow you to think a security guard could qualify for carry a gun.

First a school board has to agree to allow guns in the school then approve those teachers to use them. School board meetings are open to the general public and kids would know who has the code to the safe. And as far as putting the safes in it's not as easy as just throwing it in a wall in fact you can't do that with the current structure of any school I've been in. Your gonna need a construction crew and the safe will need to be put IN the floor, and I'm assuming it's a small safe big enough to fit a glock.

You can't put it in the walls because anyone with a sledge hammer can bust through those white bricks and pull the safe out, you also couldn't attach it to the girders because that would be difficult and probably be situational basis(the girders would put there with the thought of structural support not what is the prime location for putting a 100lb safe that can't be removed on). So it's the floor and only the first floor because I don't believe it's structurally safe to put one in the floor of an office without a shit ton of concrete under it. So from the construction everyone will know Mr. so and so is have construction done in his office where is the safe going to be? The floor, and is he going to put a filing cabinet on top if it? Well lets hope he has enough room to move that filing cabinet and get to the gun in time. Or a security guard near the lobby can have his in his holster ready to fire when necessary.

School boards have public and private meetings, otherwise everyone in Forney would have known about the millions the CFO and former Super took off and left them in the hole with before the state took the money. The schools who have implmented the program have already stated that information will not be disclosed for safety reasons. They actually modified the school over the summer to put the gun safes in so it would be undetectable, and implmented the new program at the beginning of the next year after those involved had been training all year for it since it had passed in the fall of the previous year. More safes were put in than will be used and the firearms will be moved accordingly and the current firearm locations are only known to active participants in the program.

You made an awfully lot of false assuming there. LOL

Da Orky Man:
I am getting very confused with how the US works now. How does a country with quite possibly one of the most anti-authoritarian population of Western civilization end up with this?

They voted for authoritarians.

Lil devils x:

School boards have public and private meetings, otherwise everyone in Forney would have known about the millions the CFO and former Super took off and left them in the hole with before the state took the money. The schools who have implmented the program have already stated that information will not be disclosed for safety reasons. They actually modified the school over the summer to put the gun safes in so it would be undetectable, and implmented the new program at the beginning of the next year after those involved had been training all year for it since it had passed in the fall of the previous year. More safes were put in than will be used and the firearms will be moved accordingly and the current firearm locations are only known to active participants in the program.

You made an awfully lot of false assuming there. LOL

First googling gunsafes school brings up several links where gun safes would be able to be accessed by resources officers in Idaho however it doesn't look like the program has been implemented yet. Also Resource officer is a fancy title for school security officer. Now, there is an armed teacher initiative that recently started but has yet to be used in the school.

So do you mind giving me where this program has been implemented in the way you said it was done. With a link to a new story about it.

Hot dang, someone quickly shut that stable door. The horse bolted half an hour ago.

Seriously, in the last five years there have been, on average, about 6-7 school shootings in the US each year. It's tragic but it's by no means an epidemic, and taking measures in schools all across the country that might not even help in the event of a shooting (if I were a gunman carrying a concealed weapon, I'd probably use the element of surprise to take out the armed guard first) is completely insane. Education funding is limited enough as it is, and they want to spend it on guns? Not textbooks or equipment?

You know what might help? Maybe if the news channels and the rest of the news media didn't romanticise the fuck out of the killer and lavish tons of attention upon him and debate for hours about what state his poor, troubled young mind might have been in, people might grow out of the idea that staging mass killings is a fast way to celebrity.

People are trying to come up with all kinds of ways this can go wrong, but in every accidental scenario only one person gets killed. I'm willing to take the off chance that one kid gets killed in exchange for the off chance a madman has the opportunity to kill 20.

And yeah, allowing concealed carry for the teachers who want to and using security guards if you know you can trust them seems like a sweet spot.

Skeleon:

Big government Social Conservatism. You know, morality police. Kansas isn't exactly known for being big on individualism and things that fall outside the norm.

Oh goody. How did I just KNOW that it was a cheap shot at the fact that we are a red state -_-.

Here is a question: If having guards in schools would lead to what you say they would, WHY HASNT IT HAPPENED YET?! Its not like we are getting new guards. Its just that Emporia decided to let the guards it ALREADY HAD carry guns, and only if they have law enforcement experiance (which will mean they have passed background checks they also received on employment) and take safetly classes. And your doom and gloom prediction has yet to happen, even though the Republicans have controlled the state for 150 years[1]. And yet, every single complaint leveled against the Republicans have yet to come true in a state that is on its way to becoming redder than Texas (TEXAS!!) and none of the "DOOM!!" Democrats/Liberals keep shouting about has happened yet. In fact, I think its only doing more to make people here redder, because that is the only reason I can come up with for the fact that Salinia and Hutchinson overwelmingly voted to give gays legal protection in employment and housing....then voted to take them away again afew years later (in 2012).

Lil devils x:

The bad cops were not when I lived in the grove, they were when I moved to the wealthiest county per sq ft in the state. The gangs were in the grove, digging up guns on the playground.. the cops would not even come down there most the time.

My point still stands. I see the cops as a reflection of the area they are from. My area is very tight knit and everyone knows everyone, to the point you cant get away with ANYTHING for too long (as I found out the hard way, doing something relatively harmless), and thus we hold our cops to higher standards and they must keep to them, while your area sounds like it has a lot of gangs and violence, and that has rotted the police core black.

[1] Although we have had Democrat governors, the Republicans have always had control of the state House and state Senate. Even when we have Democrats, they are usually Blue Dogs, anyway.

Hammartroll:
People are trying to come up with all kinds of ways this can go wrong, but in every accidental scenario only one person gets killed. I'm willing to take the off chance that one kid gets killed in exchange for the off chance a madman has the opportunity to kill 20.

What makes you think guards will stop school shootings in the first place? It's highly unlikely. The only thing they'll have time to respond to is very long organised shootings. The average gun owner just pulls out a gun in a crowd, starts blasting and not two minutes later some kids are dead, no way to prevent it once he has purchased that firearm... And the organised shooters will just kill the guard first, simple.

Case in point: The second Virginia Tech shooting. They had armed guards there too. The shooter just walked up to the guard and second amended him. Fortunately apparently that threw him off somehow and he didn't embark on a shooting spree after that.

BOOM headshot65:
Well, Emporia did anyway. And other schools are looking into it. They want to make it so the security guards that have already been hired can carry guns as long as they pass job requirements (they have to have 3 years of law enforcement work, and take safetly classes/have proper permits). The reason they decided to do this now is in the wake of Newtown. They want thier guard to be armed in the event that something does go down. It is also being talked about, both at Emporia and other districts, about also letting teachers carry thier own guns concealed.

So, what are your thoughts on this. Obviously, I approve. However, its not like it will be needed, IMO. Kansas hasnt had a mass KILLING, let alone mass shooting, in 150 years, and all the times it happened then were during THE Civil War and Bleeding Kansas (Kansas's own mini civil war 10 years before the main one, for those who dont know what that is.)

People (who do not live here) wonder why I love our State. This is why I love Kansas. Thank you for posting this.

I was born here.
I will serve the community here.
I will die here.
All the while, singing praises to the Lord for giving us Kansas.

Blablahb:

Hammartroll:
People are trying to come up with all kinds of ways this can go wrong, but in every accidental scenario only one person gets killed. I'm willing to take the off chance that one kid gets killed in exchange for the off chance a madman has the opportunity to kill 20.

What makes you think guards will stop school shootings in the first place? It's highly unlikely. The only thing they'll have time to respond to is very long organized shootings. The average gun owner just pulls out a gun in a crowd, starts blasting and not two minutes later some kids are dead, no way to prevent it once he has purchased that firearm... And the organized shooters will just kill the guard first, simple.

Case in point: The second Virginia Tech shooting. They had armed guards there too. The shooter just walked up to the guard and second amended him. Fortunately apparently that threw him off somehow and he didn't embark on a shooting spree after that.

But, the Armed guards at the School, will be able to respond faster then the police. The guards are there; the police might be anyplace else. The police might take 20 min to get to the school (or more), the Guards are right there.

Side note, do not call a shooting "second amended", it is disrespectful to the victims and the constitution.

Gilhelmi:

All the while, singing praises to the Lord for giving us Kansas.

This sentence goes well with this song:

If you dont mind me asking, were abouts are you at here?

IS anyone concerned for how trigger happy these guards can get from time to time? And I don't mean with guns I mean just in general 7 year olds handcuffed, grade schools and preschoolers arrested for temper tantrums in a classroom...I am all for the occasional scare tactic when parents approve but some of the stories are becoming ridiculous. I have no problem with trained professionals carrying firearms at schools. My county has actual police officers and security at all schools and its a very economically diverse area, so I'm used to it. I just worry about an upset teacher calling school security to a class, most likely high school, and things getting way too heated...as well as the possibility of a student managing to get the gun after incapacitating an officer.

Gilhelmi:
Side note, do not call a shooting "second amended", it is disrespectful to the victims and the constitution.

It's lovely satire to expose what the gun lobby is doing by clinging to said amendment. One of their main points is trying to argue there's a difference between legal and illegal weapons, and legal and illegal use of weapons, while there isn't. It's legal hairsplitting. Support people having guns, you also support the inevitable consequence of them being used in shootings, it's really not any more complicated than that.

Won't change untill either people change their point of view on that, or no guns ever get used for shootings anymore.

Lil devils x:

They have already had cameras, metal detectors, armed police officers, searches, frisking in schools a very long time now already in many schools across the United States, that is actually old news.

Since the columbine shooting, they have started arming teachers and staff here as well and recently been adding RFID to the ID tags students are required to wear.

I see bringing in the police as more "authortarian" than allowing teachers and administration to volunteer for the " Guardian program" where they take on the responsibility to defend the students and staff themselves.

The idea that this is a "slippery slope" when this has already been going on a very long time, seems odd to me. Were people not already aware that this has existed in the US for a very long time already?

I see it as more authortarian to deny someone the basic right to defend themselves and those they care about. I would see it as more authortarian to say that you have to be a police officer to be able to do that.

With volunteers no one is being forced to do anything. The schools should be allowed to choose for themselves.

Where's the parents choice? I wouldn't want to send my kids to a school full of guns but if every school in the state has armed guards/teachers then I don't have a choice do I?[1]

You are forcing them into a situation they don't like because it's unfair to force teachers into a situation they don't like, it's a lose-lose situation because you are forcing a messed up solution onto a even more messed up situation

Completely off topic but I find it funny that some Americans go on about parts of Europe like it's a 1984 dystopia and yet I've never heard of those kinds of security measures being used in British schools.

[1] I don't agree with home-schooling, downsides massively outweigh the positives (imo)

My middle and high schools both had security officers who carried, I think they were both technically cops. Not because of any particular violence in my sleepy suburb, but I guess to assuage parental fears post Columbine. My high school was also about 500 ft. from the police station, so I'm sure they're more than prepared for any craziness. Which isn't to say that there wouldn't be a lot of dead people if someone decided to make a Columbine style attack.

Blablahb:
Won't change until either people change their point of view on that.

So you're justifying offensive behavior because has different opinions than your own?

Because if you are, you're just shooting yourself in the foot when it comes to swaying other's outlook.

Smagmuck_:
So you're justifying offensive behavior because has different opinions than your own?
Because if you are, you're just shooting yourself in the foot when it comes to swaying other's outlook.

How can you possibly interpret it like that? That sentence said that people can change their opinion away from the irrational defense of gun possession and violence, and then they obviously don't need to worry about people getting 'second amended' in classrooms, because they no longer endorse that happening.

Blablahb:
'second amended'

That's why. People find that offensive here. You're not going to win anyone over using it, you'll just make more enemies.

Smagmuck_:
That's why. People find that offensive here. You're not going to win anyone over using it, you'll just make more enemies.

If someone's hostile enough in their convictions to hate me over ridiculing an inconvenient truth of the gun lobby, they were probably so unreasonable you'd never convince them with sensible arguments to begin with.

Smagmuck_:
That's why. People find that offensive here. You're not going to win anyone over using it, you'll just make more enemies.

Eh, I think it's a nicely offensive reversal of the "second amendment solutions"-euphemism that Sharron Angle used. You know, that whole "we're gonna start shooting if the democratic process and Congress don't go our way"-thing. That's much worse, especially coming from an elected official.

Lil devils x:

Escalation when you are not under direct threat is absurd, increasing defence after you have already been attacked repeatedly is common sense.

Wrong on both counts if you ask a diplomat.

I support this fully. If you think you can get rid of guns, you don't know how easy it is to get illegal things in America. It is frighteningly so.
The only alternative is law abiding citizens being armed, which is a very achievable solution.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked