It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NRA wants armed guards in schools

page: 21
22
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by phoenixlights321
 


Mall, Movies, summer camp, Zoo, many do have someone armed.

When I take the kids to the beach, Playground, pool then I am armed.

That leaves daycare and a school bus.

Basically you want throw a bunch of what ifs in the mix which is completely avoiding the issue in the OP.
My kids are safe with me because I am armed and will protect my family, myself, and innocents around me. I do not know where you live but maybe the malls and Sumer camps you let your kids go to are unprotected the ones where I live are protected. You are just making the dumbest arguments you can but no matter how you see it as I stated before the 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere so you take your anti-gun ideals and forget it. This shouldn’t even be a debate. Having an armed guard at schools to protect our children is a no brainer. What do you think the parents would think about having someone there to stop a madman at SH. Before you go into some anti-gun rhetoric you should know that one parent already came forward and stated he blames the person and not the guns.




posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 





Frankly, it takes an idiot to ignore the fact that schools are a prime target for terrorists and whackos, because they, by definition, contain large numbers of defenseless targets


I am surprised we haven't had any incidents of someone yelling "Allah Ahkbar" just before detonating himself in the middle of a lunchroom full of kids yet. In fact, i'm betting someone over there is taking notes on the lack of security in our public school systems in the U.S. and making plans, because if you can think of it, i guarantee you they already have thought about it and nothing worse to terrorize americans than blowing up schools and daycares full of little kids. That would make 9/11 look like a mousefart compared to Hiroshima.
edit on 21-12-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)


Totally agree. Schools are already targeted in other countries. Did you see the list I linked to? Will post again, because people really need to see it.

This could be our schools.....

Of course, when the Ft. Hood guy yeleld that, the WH refused to call him a terrorist, so I guess we know where he stands on the schools as well. But, then, HIS kids get Secret Service protection.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by rational1
 


How would you address the mental health issues then?



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


I don't think that just because someone works at a school, they are stable enough to safely have a gun around children. They have the same % of crazies as the rest of the population.

I said before.. think of how many teachers are outed each year for having relations with these children. They're not all saints.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


So what do you do when the crazed gunman has you outgunned, a 100-round drum, and BODY ARMOR?

Holster your gun and call 911?

Go down in a blaze of glory?

Shoot at them anyway, and watch in horror as your ricochets kill and maim those you wish to protect?

WE CAN DO BETTER!!!!



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fireman205253
reply to post by rational1
 


How would you address the mental health issues then?


No idea! I brought that up because addressing mental health issues seems it would help eradicate the root of the problem. Although I am no expert, I'm sure there are people in think tanks who are thinking of ways to do this right now.

Edit: Care to address the rest of my post, though?
edit on 21-12-2012 by rational1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ErEhWoN
 


Understand, but what about guns used for defensive purposes. If they are gone no defense against criminals. Plus criminals will still obtain them. You could argue a bomb would be most effective to kill mass amounts of people. More so than a gun, and it's easier to obtain the ingredients. No FFL require just go to Walmart and buy them. Anyone that has a computer could make a bomb, just look it up. I have a background in that particular subject for the military. I would be easier and they wouldn't have to be in the area. Just something to think about.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I had this thought the other day but dismissed it because it was too extreme. Maybe there is a modification of it that could work.

If someone uses your gun to commit a crime, you go down for that crime whether you knew about it or not. Unless gun was reported stolen in advance or something.

It might encourage people to actually lock their guns up.

It's too extreme to be realistic but maybe a partial liability law or something.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by rational1
A lot of people are framing this wrong. This isn't about protecting the children vs not protecting the children. Obviously everyone wants the children to be safe. This is about whether a policeman inside school (although the NRA guy talked about volunteers, which is even more ludicrous) would be effective in protecting our children, and the answer is no. Unless you have one in every room at the ready all the time, anything could still happen (you just need to shoot the policemen first if there's one or two..), and EVEN STILL it's entirely possible for someone to manage to shoot a room of kids. The kids will never be able to be 100% safe. And I don't think this community of all communities wants to have these people (if they're volunteers, they've just been given a lot of new power, this is bad) near our children, no less ever-present in their school lives.

Trying to attack this problem from the mental health perspective would probably be more effective.
edit on 21-12-2012 by rational1 because: (no reason given)


Do you really believe that all of the shooters are mentally ill? That recent tactic is simply a way to demonize more people, and prevent more people from defending themselves.


Originally posted by BigfootNZ
*snip*
Why the hell would you need something like an assault rifle anyway?.. Are American moose and deer packing heat now days?
Only type of gun a normal person would ever need is one single gun, ie a hunting rifle, that can get them some food with a single shot and some patience, anything else is either a pointless toy or a major over compensation for something missing in their life.

But i guess you gotta cling to that archaic 2nd amendment right.


When someone breaks into your house, do you think that shooting them with a rifle is the best plan? Hit the target, go through the wall, hit your kid or a neighbor.....really?

No, guns are not "toys", not are the "over-compensation" for something. They are for self defense. A handgun, with hollow points, or a shotgun, both make great home defense weapons.


Originally posted by PrincessTofu
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


I don't think that just because someone works at a school, they are stable enough to safely have a gun around children. They have the same % of crazies as the rest of the population.

I said before.. think of how many teachers are outed each year for having relations with these children. They're not all saints.


People with a criminal record don't get a concealed carry permit. No, they are not all saints, and that is why background checks are run for permits. Teachers that abuse should not be teaching in the first place, and that is another issue that needs work. If this was implemented, then only those that could pass a rigorous background check could be allowed to carry at the schools. Not all would need a gun. However, if a potential shooter knew some were armed, and didn't know who, they would most likely choose another target. Some lives could be saved. With this last school shooting, the police stated that the guy shot himself when police arrived, and that he might have killed a lot more people otherwise. He had, we are told, a lot of guns.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 





You are just making the dumbest arguments you can but no matter how you see it as I stated before the 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere so you take your anti-gun ideals and forget it.


Uhhhh, I have a Glock .45 ACP

Served in the Army, probably shot more rounds through an m-16 than most people in their lifetime. Pretty damn good too.




What do you think the parents would think about having someone there to stop a madman at SH.


Probably the same thoughts as the parents of the victims from Columbine.




Before you go into some anti-gun rhetoric you should know that one parent already came forward and stated he blames the person and not the guns.


Not a sane person alive would blame anything but this deranged lunatic.

The gun just made it EASIER(don't get too tired from pulling a trigger), FASTER (more victims) and more efficient (more dead victims).

Armed guards, armed everyone is NOT the answer. Calling names, judging people or making assumptions on how they live live their life are not the answer. These mentalities are from a by-gone era and they belong there.

We are AMERICANS! WE CAN DO BETTER!



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


So what do you do when the crazed gunman has you outgunned, a 100-round drum, and BODY ARMOR?

Holster your gun and call 911?

Go down in a blaze of glory?

Shoot at them anyway, and watch in horror as your ricochets kill and maim those you wish to protect?

WE CAN DO BETTER!!!!


Shoot him in the head; I have pretty good aim. If he shoots me, at least I would know I tried to keep those kids safe. What was done this last time? Nothing. Till the police showed up, the guy (or guys, if you think there were more than one) stood unopposed.

Yes, we certainly can do better!



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrincessTofu
I had this thought the other day but dismissed it because it was too extreme. Maybe there is a modification of it that could work.

If someone uses your gun to commit a crime, you go down for that crime whether you knew about it or not. Unless gun was reported stolen in advance or something.

It might encourage people to actually lock their guns up.

It's too extreme to be realistic but maybe a partial liability law or something.


Um. NO! You don't arrest someone because someone else stole their gun, and used it in a crime. People DO lock up guns, that are then stolen.

Just another case of wanting to blame anything and anyone but the criminal.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by rational1
A lot of people are framing this wrong. This isn't about protecting the children vs not protecting the children. Obviously everyone wants the children to be safe. This is about whether a policeman inside school (although the NRA guy talked about volunteers, which is even more ludicrous) would be effective in protecting our children, and the answer is no. Unless you have one in every room at the ready all the time, anything could still happen (you just need to shoot the policemen first if there's one or two..), and EVEN STILL it's entirely possible for someone to manage to shoot a room of kids. The kids will never be able to be 100% safe. And I don't think this community of all communities wants to have these people (if they're volunteers, they've just been given a lot of new power, this is bad) near our children, no less ever-present in their school lives.

Trying to attack this problem from the mental health perspective would probably be more effective.
edit on 21-12-2012 by rational1 because: (no reason given)


Do you really believe that all of the shooters are mentally ill? That recent tactic is simply a way to demonize more people, and prevent more people from defending themselves.



Do you believe that someone who chooses to shoot and kill innocent people isn't mentally ill? Please explain how they can be perfectly sane people.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by rational1
 


I agree the mental health system is a huge problem but this isn’t the forum for that debate. There have been plenty of instances where having armed security at schools have prevented many possible tragedies. The idea of armed security in school is not new they had them when I was in school so it has been going on for a very long time.

There is a convince store down the street from me that has never been robed while the one across the street from it has been robed twice the only difference is the owner of the one that hasn’t has a sign in front that states that he is armed. There will never be 100% guarantee that people are safe in a place but if that school had an armed guard there would have been a chance that the psycho that killed those kids could have been stopped or he may have decided to not even go there. I guarantee the parents that lost their children wish there was an armed guard at that school.

All schools should have an armed security guard how can anyone think different. Criminals are going to ignore the law but they fear resistance.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


So what do you do when the crazed gunman has you outgunned, a 100-round drum, and BODY ARMOR?

Holster your gun and call 911?

Go down in a blaze of glory?

Shoot at them anyway, and watch in horror as your ricochets kill and maim those you wish to protect?

WE CAN DO BETTER!!!!


Bullets don't ricochet from body armor, they embed, they can knock you down and they hurt like hell. (personal experience)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 





Just another case of wanting to blame anything and anyone but the criminal.


I have yet to see a case of anyone 'wanting to blame anything and anyone but the criminal. '

Most just don't want to make it so easy for them.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fireman205253
reply to post by vonclod
 


Canada is without a doubt lower on murders than the US. A couple things to consider though. Canada has 38mil people, the US over 311mil people. I'm sure crime itself is lower there. And they have mounties which are just damn cool. Plus the US has a ton of illegal Mexicans that help our crime stats too. But all things considered Canada is probably a nice place to live. The US has it's issues, however I am a citizen and I do take my rights personal. Especially since I served my country, so I feel I deserve the rights laid out by the US Constitution.

yes my figures dealt with the pop difference if we were just the same.. canada should of had somewhere around 900 murders by firearm if the same per capita as u.s. rates..im not advocating taking guns away from anyone but the more guns the safer theory just doesnt pan out..i wish i had the answer



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Camperguy
I think I was reading that it would cost $5 Billion a year to cover every public school with a police officer, that was if his average salary was $50k a year. That would also cover his pension,health care and such.

cnn link

Looks like it costs $850,000 per soldier,per year in Afghanistan! I think that works out to about 5800 soldiers in Afghanistan vrs every school in the US being covered. At least our tax dollars would stay here because we all know a Soldier doesnt make $850k a year.

Bill

Bill


Most don't even make 50K a year. Maybe they could pay some out-of-work veterans to keep the kids safe.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
And they should. That is why last Sunday I started this already. I went to a city council meeting Tuesday and told them what I wanted and talked to my chief of police. I then went to my sons school and waited about 2 hours to talk to the principal. He liked the idea and now to the school board.

That morning, at that time on 12/14, my son was actually in the office of his elementary school. My wife Liz was in Kissimmee(out of town) and I was tasked with taking my son to school. Seems he wore the wrong color pants and to be honest I did not notice it since it is so few times I can take him in the morning. Simply having too much fun laughing and talking about Christmas and Elf on a shelf. Later that day when my wife told me where he was when it happened I thought what if it was my sons school that had been targeted. We asked ourselves "how would I feel and what would I do to make sure i could save just one life." and we thought of this. There are at least 2 qualified people per elementary school district that could be considered.

After too many tragedies there needs to be a proactive solution to secure our schools and give peace of mind to child and parent alike. We cannot wait for politicians to argue the how and why or budgets. Our communities have to keep our children safe from these types of incidents. As parents, we need to coordinate with our schools and Local law enforcement to make sure our community is safe.

We believe that each school needs at least 2 protectors per school which is why we created the idea of GranCops. This is not a new idea but one that should be revisited by all School Boards and Local Law Enforcement Organizations. After Columbine there were attempts to put extra security in place but it is now mostly reactive and not proactive. This is a grass roots movement to continue to discuss options to keep our communities safe and ask for protection for our children in schools.

Retired law or military. I have a handful of Marines and retired cops now at my disposal to use at our school. It can be done.

check us



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


So what do you do when the crazed gunman has you outgunned, a 100-round drum, and BODY ARMOR?

Holster your gun and call 911?

Go down in a blaze of glory?

Shoot at them anyway, and watch in horror as your ricochets kill and maim those you wish to protect?

WE CAN DO BETTER!!!!


Shoot him in the head; I have pretty good aim. If he shoots me, at least I would know I tried to keep those kids safe. What was done this last time? Nothing. Till the police showed up, the guy (or guys, if you think there were more than one) stood unopposed.

Yes, we certainly can do better!


I was thinking that too. I wasnt shocked when they were talking about the teacher who shielded her kids from the gunman with her body, I know my wife would have done the same thing.


Bill




top topics



 
22
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join