Does It Really Make Sense To Militarize Schools?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
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..

yea i just threw that in to keep it interesting but i will say it is not without constitutional merit.

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
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.

This argument is so ignorant (and not to mention arrogant). Why can't people just want to limit gun access because guns kill people? Your wall of text of unsourced statistics doesn't magically make people comfortable at night that guns are safe and that they are safe from people using them against them.

The idea that the ONLY reason people want to limit gun usage is because of government control is #ing boneheaded and not to mention insulting. There are TONS of people who support gun control but also support the right to own guns. If you can't even be bothered to have a real conversation about guns, then maybe we should just write you out of the conversation altogether?

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.

This is malakary, If you ACTUALLY cared about the history of this amendment and not just a desire to repeat NRA talking points, you'd know that the Supreme Court didn't even recognize that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to own a gun until 2008.

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."

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about confiscating guns for government control, slap them in the face for waylaying a responsible conversation we should be having with fearmongering.

originally posted by: Saiker
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?

In your non event scenario the effect would be greater than the method.

either way it is a nonstarter

a reply to: howtonhawky

No, it doesn't make sense to "militarize" schools (and that's not the proper use of the term if the author is using that to reference one person calling for the NG to protect schools). But that said, it makes perfect sense to allow well-trained and willing teachers to carry concealed firearms in their classroom--and not even because there are students in there, but because they have every right to be able to defend themselves, even while on the job.

I wholly agree that metal detectors are rather pointless--the only thing that they will catch may be a benign concealed-carrier who forgot to put their weapon in their car, or may indicate someone is there to do harm, but they will still do it anyway. Plus, they are pretty expensive to keep up, and honestly, I wouldn't want my children walking through one 5/7ths of the week. That said, I looked at the link where the author notes that, and it's an opinion piece from the ACLU that relies on the illogical conclusion that correlation equals causation--it's an unsubstantiated claim.

Look, this Fridel person makes sense with the data, but not his opinion on gun regulations. He talks about the response should be proportionate to the threat (which is exceptionally low, as he points out), yet still advocates for more stringent gun laws.

While he is more level-headed than the average pro-gun-control person out there, he's still advocating gun control, even in the face of it being an unnecessary thing (and even notes that it would do nothing to stop these mass shootings in schools). I find a lack of sufficient rationale in this article, as well as some cognitive dissonance on behalf of the author.

It's like he's saying, "Well, all stats point to gun control being unnecessary, but, you know, it might still do something, so why not?"

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
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..

do you have any idea how many times a year death is prevented by the brandishing of a weapon?

last i heard from fbi was around 500,000 recorded cases and that would indicate that many more times go unreported.

To put things into perspective there have been about 474 shooting in US schools from 1764 till 2018, not all loss of life. Now there are 325.7 million people in the US now. You work out the percentage, because I tried and failed, it's extremely low. Now out of 325 million you are going to get quite a few nutjobs and I'll guarantee you it is way higher than those already attacked schools.
With the numbers in mind no one is going to stop all of them, even if you militarised all schools. The odds of it happening is very, very low but the crime is emotive with the "oh, but the children" or "what if it was your child". I would hazard a guess that more people (men, women and children) are killed in auto accidents every year in the US but there is not a national call to ban all cars.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: howtonhawky
I almost forgot....no
We almost forgot....

Yeah except Nazis did no such thing.
www.politifact.com...

That is correct and the image above is nothing more than propaganda perpetuated at the ignorant.

It's getting beyond annoying that the right and the NRA has to constantly employ this idea that the government wants to come for your guns JUST because Americans have decided they want more gun control from their government.

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
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."

this should be tattooed on hog and the rest of the new kids on the blocks head...not really but it definitely needs repeating

a reply to: howtonhawky

it doesnt make a difference you can see the gun control advocates completely ignore the facts and carry on with fear mongering right in this very thread, perfect example is how mrkrazyshot replied to my post, total disregard for the facts and reality of the situation, his position is those facts dont stop the fear people are feeling so therefor pass more laws anyway.

it just goes to show you cant argue with stupid.

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
texas has already been doing it for years, dont have any school shootings there.

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

Care to put your money where your mouth is?
List of school shootings in the United States

I count 10 in Texas since the 1990's and 1 that even happened this year.

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....

Yes it is dumb to give teachers guns. Training or otherwise.

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 to being safe and accurate with a firearm, they would be made to keep up with their training, and they would be tested regularly,

Or we could just do what we've always done and have resource officers who are actual police officers do this.

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

Yeah. It's dumb and shortsighted. Not to mention, it would be a HUGE waste of taxpayer money training teachers to shoot guns and providing yearly recertifications for them when they could be using that tax money for things like improving teaching.

a reply to: howtonhawky

[Does it really make sense to militarize schools?

I think the better question to ask is, "Did it really make sense to turn schools into so-called "gun-free zones"? Which really only means "good-guy-gun-free-zones"... because, obviously, there's no such thing as a "bad-guy-gun-free-zone," right? That's what makes them bad guys.

And in the process of asking and answering that question, we have to ask ourselves if it really made any sense to infringe our natural inalienable right to protect and defend our lives, with equal and proportionate force, by disarming anyone and everyone so inclined in this good-guy-gun-free-zone... under color of law and the point of a gun.

And, of course, we have to ask ourselves if it really made any sense to impose good-guy-gun-free-zones and turn our kids into helpless sitting ducks against overwhelming power.

Our kids didn't become such easy targets by nature... it was by design.

Does anyone really think that going against stats will win anyone any battles?

That's a good question. And the appropriate stats should also be considered in light of the questions I posed above.

If school shootings are on the decline then why are we getting so much anger over a dwindling problem?

People tend to get a little upset when their life and limb are in danger... and parents especially get upset when their children's lives and limbs are in danger. People are just like that. Go figure.

Personally i think there is a mentality battle that gun owners are losing.

Personally, I think there's a mentality battle that lots of folks are losing and they come in all sizes, shapes and flavors.

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
a reply to: howtonhawky

it doesnt make a difference you can see the gun control advocates completely ignore the facts and carry on with fear mongering right in this very thread, perfect example is how mrkrazyshot replied to my post, total disregard for the facts and reality of the situation, his position is those facts dont stop the fear people are feeling so therefor pass more laws anyway.

It's funny you accuse me of avoiding facts when you don't seem to care about the facts either... I've already proven you wrong on two points that are critical to your defense of guns with simple Google searches.

Kids bullied someone and someone got even and the kids still don't get it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

you havent proven a damn thing and you know it,

put your money where your mouth is and prove it. demonstrate your position by including it in your post, rather then this fake "i posted something before" BS

i repeated myself 3 times for details you had ignored, you have no excuse not to do the same.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

it makes perfect sense to allow well-trained and willing teachers to carry concealed firearms in their classroom-

We do not need any new laws for that.

It should be at the county level and state level.

It already is happening in many areas.

I will retort the rest of your post with my opinion that at this point it is about finding our comfort zone at the school levels. So if it makes one district feel better to be in full militrizational(lol tm) mode then so be it and if another school needs a bucket of rocks then so be it. We need no new laws for any of that.

kudos for reading the article.

a reply to: NobodiesNormal

Nice rebuttal that says nothing, but I have two long posts you need to address that you ignored 100%. You can't just dismiss them by saying, "nuh huh!" Well I guess you can, but I'm going to laugh at you for being naive. Whenever you feel like having a real conversation with me and not one where you try to call me dumb as much as possible, I'll be waiting.

PS: Since you haven't sourced a single point you've made, you haven't proven anything that I need to address.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

even politico admits the texas schools participating in the program have not had any shootings since,.
www.politico.com...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

i did source my stats, they are from the government, ie FBI, CDC, the agencies which track gun and death stats. DUH! in your own words " a simple google search would show it"




btw as far as sourcing goes since you brought it up, you havnt sourced anything either.

and no a random Wikipedia page doesnt cut it. that wikipedia article counts gang crime that occurred within a mile of a school as a school shooting..... not a very honest article... but then what else can we expect from wikipedia... things like that are exactly why everyone always talks down wiki as a source

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
a reply to: Krazysh0t

i did source my stats, they are from the government, ie FBI, CDC, the agencies which track gun and death stats. DUH! in your own words " a simple google search would show it"

No you didn't. Sourcing requires you to actually link to the actual source so I can confirm with my own eyes the stats are real, and since you still believe that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect gun rights I HIGHLY distrust you to provide real information.

btw as far as sourcing goes since you brought it up, you havnt sourced anything either.

and no a random Wikipedia page doesnt cut it. that wikipedia article counts gang crime that occurred within a mile of a school as a school shooting..... not a very honest article... but then what else can we expect from wikipedia... things like that are exactly why everyone always talks down wiki as a source

Lol, better than anything you provided. But hey, thanks for moving the goal posts for me. Those shootings don't count because they were gang related. Leave it to the pro-gun crowd to shift the goal posts around when you got a point on them.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: SlapMonkey


We do not need any new laws for that.

It should be at the county level and state level.

It already is happening in many areas.

You are half correct--but many states have laws that designate schools (amongst other things) as no-gun zones, so the municipalities and districts often can't go against that.

Take California for example--my old school district (Kern County High Schools) approved concealed carry for its teachers, but then the state went and passed a law that overruled that ability, so now it's illegal in all California school districts for any teachers to carry a firearm as protection.

Personally, I believe that any and all public grounds, from district level up to federal level, should not be allowed to prohibit the rights guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment, but right now, that's not the reality, so we do need laws.

kudos for reading the article.

I try.