Does It Really Make Sense To Militarize Schools?

a reply to: howtonhawky

Pla link to the article.

Agreed it makes no sense to put armed security in schools. Same for airports isn't it ridiculous to have security airports. Oh and courthouses and social security offices, federal buildings, town halls, military bases, embassies, consulates, congress, white house, stadiums, fairs, concerts, news agencies, police departments, prisons. Why do all these need security surely not one of the above mentioned are as vulnerable as a bunch of kids.

Sarcasm

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: howtonhawky

Does anyone really think that going against stats will win anyone any battles? If school shootings are on the decline then why are we getting so much anger over a dwindling problem?

We're getting so much anger over a dwindling problem because of the current liberal media being mixed with the rise of Social Justice Warriors who don't understand the laws, history, statistics, rights, or anything with the exception of emotional appeal and catch phrases.

The democratic platform hates guns. They hated them since them colored folk gained rights decades ago, and they hate them now. Take away defense, take away self preservation, and they have countless people relying on the state for everything... Which is the entire base. Now, they have overly emotional teenagers that use their 1st amendment right to protest HAVING rights, and wanting them taken away..... Then, subsequently getting angry when their rights are infringed upon..... I believe the current internet breaking statement is "Why are we all getting punished for the actions of one person?" - coming form one of the figure heads of the current anti-gun movement.

This is a means to an end, nothing more. Remember the words of Hitler, when he stated:

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

Quote: www.goodreads.com...

Are the parents of the dead who campaign classed as social justice warriors?

I am not quite sure most sane people view Hitler and his ideals as something to aspire to, whether that agrees with your own bias is unfortunate but quoting Hitler, seems odd when trying to make an valid point.

So is it so far from your view that if i dont like firearms in the home I am an SJW Nazi, seems calling names will settle this debate

originally posted by: Saiker
Agreed it makes no sense to put armed security in schools. Same for airports isn't it ridiculous to have security airports. Oh and courthouses and social security offices, federal buildings, town halls, military bases, embassies, consulates, congress, white house, stadiums, fairs, concerts, news agencies, police departments, prisons. Why do all these need security surely not one of the above mentioned are as vulnerable as a bunch of kids.

Sarcasm

why do we need armed guards if the statistics show that we are in a serious decline of death by gun in schools?

do you not understand that militarization can effect the mind of people? counter sarc

a reply to: Spider879

what are you talking about?

please explain how hitler disarming people and killing them did not happen or whatever you are meaning that i am missing.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Agreed there hasn't been a war on us soil since the civil war why do we even need bases or a military for that matter. Tell the parents of one of the dead kids from the last 20 years statistically your kids not dead.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: howtonhawky

The usual left hyperbole. We defend our President with arms. Our banks. Our institutions. Our 'elite'.
Our money and gold.

Yet our most precious resource, our children, do not merit the same protection?

I can't even walk into a Federal Social Security building without an armed guard being present. Not our kids?

My contempt.

so you wanna inject a militaristic mentality into the learning processes of our childrens minds cause they do it everywhere else while rejecting the very thing we send them to school for...logic and learning

more kids die in the shower before school that shot at school..more likely to be struck by lightening that to be shot in school

but hey i understand feelings

i am a feared of flying even though it is safer than driving

originally posted by: Saiker
a reply to: howtonhawky

Agreed there hasn't been a war on us soil since the civil war why do we even need bases or a military for that matter. Tell the parents of one of the dead kids from the last 20 years statistically your kids not dead.

hyperbole...

let us tell them that the offenders that took the lives have been punished


we need military and citizens to be armed cause there are real killers out there that are waiting for us to drop our guard

Only gun owners should have the right to vote on gun laws as per the constitution

only the militia can regulate the militia

a reply to: howtonhawky

Barely..

The dynamic of school shootings is just too weird....

They are attacking a specific place that wronged them and planning on dying in the attack...

They are not finding the school with the least security. So “how hardened the school is , is irrelevant..


The students who become shooters are also enrolled at the school they later shoot up. So they would likely not be considered “out of place”, To the average security officer.

Which would allow them to get close enough to kill the officer before he can draw and fire.


It’s a crazy dynamic..

The only common thread I can see that we can exploit to stop these things is the fact the next school shooter is sitting in class in the school he will shoot up right now.

The fact the threat will come from within the school is the only real thing we can go off of.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Oh yea.. that makes sense..


Maybe only alcoholics should vote on drinking ages and dui levels..

Maybe only crack heads should vote on drug laws..

Lol

Gotta love toddler logic..

a reply to: howtonhawky

What amount of punishment would make it ok for one of your children to be murdered? Would you willingly accept statistically your child should have never died while school shootings are becoming a regular occurance and your more likely to receive a ticket for speeding on the way to pick up your kid from the morgue than your child to be protected from a mass killer?

I know most do not want to hear it but we are in God's hands.

We are just acting out energies sent to us.

That is why sometimes the cops charge the place and get it right and other times they cower.

The most wise thing we can do is find our comfort zone like they did in the state with the 5 gallon bucket of rocks.

If in your town you need the national guard to feel safe then so be it.

a reply to: Saiker

No one is banning all the guns... period.

However, it really is a great point..

Almost 0% of the number of people killed with guns are justifiable homicides..

For all the gun deaths there are only 300 cases of justifiable homicide each year..

I think it is what??

30,000 shootings per year and only 300 justifiable homicides.. and only a fraction of those are from burglaries..

a reply to: Krazysh0t

your ignorance is showing

they have repeatedly made clear with this goal those elderly untrained teachers would NOT be the ones that they arm, you would know that if you were not ignorant of the proposition that you are posting against....


the sheriffs has been very clear his intent is only to arm those in the school who are fit and capable and have training to use the firearm. they would also be required to maintain their training regularly. a very very different situation to the scenario you are spewing, you are either an agent of disinformation (if intentional) or misinformation (if unintentional) not sure which is worse..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think we should take gun training and safety more seriously. Those statistics are disappointing perhaps if people were better trained and guns were better maintained justifiable homicide would be a much better figure.

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal

the sheriffs has been very clear his intent is only to arm those in the school who are fit and capable and have training to use the firearm. they would also be required to maintain their training regularly. a very very different situation to the scenario you are spewing, you are either an agent of disinformation (if intentional) or misinformation (if unintentional) not sure which is worse..

Do you know how stupid it sounds to do that? Special training for a situation that will likely NEVER happen at a school? Training these people would have to keep up-to-date? Training that has NOTHING to do with teaching (their chosen profession). Yeah, that suggestion is even more dumb then the previous thing I talked about.

I don't know about you, but I feel like it is a stupid waste of time to be requiring teachers to have police training just to teach in our schools.

a reply to: howtonhawky

What's with the 'militaristic' coming from? If you want to equate owning and possessing a gun as militaristic, have at it. The fact is since this nation's founding, well before there even was a 'military' and right to the present, fathers have been teaching their sons the respect, responsibility and use of firearms....including the whooping they'd get if they EVER misused a weapon...no different than teaching them to drive, how to fish...on and on.

Nothing militaristic about any of them. Tradition, family tradition. Civilian tradition. A Constitutional tradition.

You seem to have no problem with pilots having guns in their cockpits...not a single high-jacking since, armed guards in banks doesn't seem to invoke the 'militaristic label', body guards for the rich and famous doesn't either.

Protecting our kids in schools does, eh??

BULL.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms,
U.S. population 325,000,000 thats 0.000001% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. which illustrates what a non issue this all really is.

of the 30,000 deaths

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws

• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified

• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence

• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore

• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit

• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)


So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
Taking away guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is “control," not “gun."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

texas has already been doing it for years, dont have any school shootings there.

but i guess thats just "stupid"......

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
... that suggestion is even more dumb then the previous thing I talked about....

... it is a stupid waste of time to be requiring teachers to have police training just to teach in our schools.

so you are literaly saying it is "more dumb" to arm individuals with firearms training, then it is to arm individuals without it.... thats your statement....

and once again your back to displaying the same ignorance over the same details that i just explained, you have any reading comprehension abilities at all?

teachers would not be required police training to teach, that is disinformation. benefit of the doubt makes it misinformation the first time you said it, but now that i have corrected you and you are still saying it, reveals it as disinformation and you an agent of it.

out of all the teachers in a school, a handful of them, so maybe only 1 or 2, who have already got experience with firearms, who themselves volunteer to be apart of the program, would then go through testing of various sorts to ensure they are of sound mind and body, and capable of being safe and accurate with a firearm, they would be made to keep up with their training, and they would be tested regularly.

THAT is the proposition being put forward about arming the schools.

everything you say counter to that is a lie, is disinformation, you had the ignorant excuse of being misinformed before, but now i have informed you. you no longer have that excuse.