NRA wants armed guards in schools

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by rational1

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.

People do that sort of thing for different reasons. With Columbine, you had kids that were social outcasts, who had probably been bullied for years. The school massacre in Russia was terrorists. Sometimes, people simply snap, and can't take whatever stresses they live under, and they go do something like that. That doesn't mean they were mentally ill. That means they made a bad decision. Some, sure, will be mentally ill, but that's not the big issue here. The ball player that shot his girlfriend wasn't mentally ill; he was upset because of a paternity issue. These days, the medical establishment wants to label anything and everything as some sort of mental disorder, so that they can prescribe a pill for it. If you ask Big Pharma, half the country is "mentally ill" in one fashion or another. No sensible person believes that, though.

Now, we have two (yes, two) stories of someone committing a crime, and the blame placed on Asperger's. This school shooting, and the guy that killed his father and himself, are both blamed on Asperger's now. So, how about a moment of logic? Asperger's is a mild form of autism. Autistic people do not like loud noises and chaos. Yet, we are supposed to believe an Asperger's guy shot up a school? Seems highly unlikely to me, as that isn't a violent disorder (and that's according to the professionals).

No, the goal there is to start forcing everyone to undergo a mental health evaluation, so that they can further control the masses. Now ask yourself this; if those opposing the president have already been labeled as "potential terrorists", do you think they would hesitate to also label all those people as "mentally ill"?

Think about it.

If someone makes the decision to kill innocent people I call them mentally ill. This label doesn't mean that they have to have some sort of diagnosed medical disorder - it means that they are not in normal mental condition. The bullied kids from Columbine were certainly not mentally sane, and someone who snaps from stress is not either. This is the problem.

Aspergers probably didn't cause the shooter to do what he did, yes, but this doesn't preclude his having other mental issues that put him in the mindset to become a killer. You're using a strawman there: I heard on NPR a sane discussion about the killings where they even went out of their way to say that the autism probably would not have been a factor. Not everyone is blaming it on that.

If everyone underwent a confidential "mental health evaluation" that you mention and had the option of receiving treatment I would be perfectly happy because that could easily prevent a wide range of incidents. Not just shootings, but also domestic violence, etc. And by the way, treatment does not have to mean drugs. Just having someone to talk to about your problems can be very helpful.

reply to post by Fireman205253

lol..good job..its pretty much the way i was taught as well

reply to post by PrincessTofu


This is true, but being able to handle kids at the age level of the school is still a needed thing, unless they are just parked outside the front gate and don't deal with the kids at all. If that is the case, what is stopping a shooter from coming in the back way instead?

The armed guards, and even the teachers and aids I have experience with in high school, most of them were, how to put it, like angels on earth. The amount of abuse they took smiling and joking still amazes me to this day.

reply to post by TKDRL
And considering your at ATS seems your parents did the right thing. Parents do have a choice. I think in most cases now a days they choose the "easier way out" instead of considering there kids. Remember, Parents are also in Social Media and there image is very important to them.

F Social Media in the way its used right now.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Fireman205253

 

That seems totally impractical to me..... How are you going to open up two safes, then load up in a decent ammount of time, and take the trigger lock off? If I thought like you, my lifestock would be ripped to pieces before I even had a chance to open up the safes.

edit on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:35:12 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

Yeah, and if someone came in the window, they would kill the entire household before the gun met the ammo.

Safe guns doesn't mean guns locked up and useless. Now, to be fair, i can see locking up hunting rifles, if you don't need them (say to protect livestock). If you do, though, it makes no sense. Same reason I don't keep my home defense guns locked up. Yes, I have kids, and yes, they KNOW about gun safety. They know guns are not toys, how to safely handle one, even how, in an emergency, to use one if they had to.

A gun locked away can't defend your home very well. Me, I would love an AK. Great for target shooting. If TSHTF, great for that, too.

reply to post by TKDRL


True. but I do keep my bow handy. I have little kids i don't want them to figure the gun thing out yet. But the bow could be quite effective, plus the wife will have time to get the guns if needed. Trust me you don't want to be around her with a gun. lol Atleast with the bow the kids can't use it cause they aren't strong enough. Plus it's hard to get to my house without being seen my closest neighbor is 4 miles away and I live the woods. I guess I would take mu chances with my bow, so my kids couldn't have an accident with my guns.

Most of the Teachers in our School are probably on some Mental Meds as well. Need to think of that as well.

reply to post by watchitburn


Not going to read through 23 pages of posts to see if this was already said (sorry, sue me), but there was at least one armed security guard at Columbine during the shooting there, and he didn't stop the shooters from racking up a large number of victims. Also, the NRA recommends that volunteers be used as guards. That's just what we need are armed volunteers like George Zimmermann in all of the nation's schools.

And I am not sure how armed, volunteer guards at schools are going to help with the mass shootings in malls, hospitals, theaters, houses of worship, office buildings and such, or with children killed by guns in homes with unsecured weapons.

This PR stunt by the NRA was but a lobbying ploy to try to get another 132,000 guns bought (one for each school) and to deflect from the issue of a ban on assault rifles and large magazines, as well as stricter background checks and doing away with the gun-show and collector exceptions to background checks.

There was another mass killing that occurred here in the US right around the time of this "press conference" -- albeit one that did not allow questions and was teeming with security. The NRA executives are a bunch of chicken-sh#| losers who are afraid of journalists and demonstrators. Truly pathetic.

Originally posted by hoochymama
Most of the Teachers in our School are probably on some Mental Meds as well. Need to think of that as well.

I dont know how any sane person would want teach


Bill

reply to post by hoochymama


I think my parents taught me well. They taught me to think outside the box and not to trust many.

I was just thinking what if an amendment to the NDAA is passed and signed that states
that no ammunition is to be imported nationally or sold domestically for recreational or self-defense purposes
by or for the citizens of the united states of America for the sole purpose of defending cruel intentions from
other American citizens?

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by watchitburn

 

Not going to read through 23 pages of posts to see if this was already said (sorry, sue me), but there was at least one armed security guard at Columbine during the shooting there, and he didn't stop the shooters from racking up a large number of victims. Also, the NRA recommends that volunteers be used as guards. That's just what we need are armed volunteers like George Zimmermann in all of the nation's schools.

And I am not sure how armed, volunteer guards at schools are going to help with the mass shootings in malls, hospitals, theaters, houses of worship, office buildings and such, or with children killed by guns in homes with unsecured weapons.

This PR stunt by the NRA was but a lobbying ploy to try to get another 132,000 guns bought (one for each school) and to deflect from the issue of a ban on assault rifles and large magazines, as well as stricter background checks and doing away with the gun-show and collector exceptions to background checks.

There was another mass killing that occurred here in the US right around the time of this "press conference" -- albeit one that did not allow questions and was teeming with security. The NRA executives are a bunch of chicken-sh#| losers who are afraid of journalists and demonstrators. Truly pathetic.

Too bad, theres some good stuff in here.

Bill

reply to post by rational1


You are right, they are in a way mentally ill. The same mentally ill that the police and soldier training instills in people by design. If you don't believe me, look up the history of "boot camp".

I shot a crackhead that broke into my APT armed with a big ass kitchen knife in white plains. He deserved it, I still threw up after, still felt bad for a long time. And this was in an APT, I didn't kill him, I used two rounds of bird shot so I didn't kill a bunch of neighbors. The screams gave me nightmares. I felt horible, even though he refused to drop the knife, and refused to leave.

The biggest reason I didn't join the military, was a comment made by one of my uncles who was military. We were discussing it one day over some beer, and I stated that I had apprehensions about shooting other people. His answer was: "Boot camp will take care of that!"

I didn't think having my humanity "taken care of" was a great idea.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by PrincessTofu
reply to post by pngxp

 

That's still a bit of a scary, slippery slope. Although a good idea in theory. There are so many stories about soldiers coming home, unable to adjust to civvy life, blowing away their girlfriends.

I think maybe the retired cop angle could work, though. Many years on the force, no IA files, still wanting to just do good and help people.

I'd compromise and say that is a good idea. Plus they would have the decades of experience to know when something isn't quite right.

Most soldiers are not that way, though. They are just people, glad to be home safe, and with their families again. As a plus, they have a LOT of tactical training (if they deploy, that's required), and familiarity with safe firearm use. They have children, too, and they want them safe. Theirs and others, because that's what they signed up for in the first place. I have known a LOT of military people, and I know who I would want at my back in a pinch.

Plus, those that have mental issues have that on record in most cases, and would not be chosen for such a post. Can understand the concern, but it's mostly misplaced in this case.

There obviously is a sort of limbo because the economy is so bad that many people are forced to join the military for gainful employment and the promise of higher education.. they join the military just out of high school or while still living with parents.. and after the trauma they have seen, they come home and are out of touch with the materialistic, shallow society.

You can't deny that there is a huge gap there. A huge problem. And of course, they joined because there are no jobs and there are still no jobs when they come back home.

Should we immediately arm them and put them in schools? Maybe no. I'm sure 99% are the most wonderful people you have ever met but it's still a little scary. Maybe we should make some civvy adjustment courses and train them? I'd vote for that.

Originally posted by vonclod

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Fireman205253

 

That seems totally impractical to me..... How are you going to open up two safes, then load up in a decent ammount of time, and take the trigger lock off? If I thought like you, my lifestock would be ripped to pieces before I even had a chance to open up the safes.

edit on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:35:12 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

about 500 children die EVERY year by a gun found in the home and in most cases legaly owned but obviously carelessly stored

In homes where the gun owner did not teach their kids about gun safely, that can happen. Same as those kids can be hurt in other ways, because the parents didn't think to teach them to be safe. Reminds me of a little girl (6-7 years old) that lived a block over from my parents. She would, as a game, run out in the street in front of cars. Her parents were NEVER there when she did that. If they'd had a gun, she would have shot herself or someone else. My kids know about guns, and about gun safety. No mystery, so no attraction. The holes in the target, from the range, were a good selling point for guns not being toys, too. Kids can learn, and most gun owners with kids don't have them killed with their own guns. In Switzerland, every household is armed; the kids grow up knowing about guns, and they don't have kids killing other kids with them, either. Yes, factual - verified by a man from Switzerland I used to work with.

If my gun was locked up, and someone came in the window, I would not have time to unlock it, get the ammo, and load it to shoot before the guy took me out. Might as well keep a water pistol by the bed.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


I prefer my 30.06, that's become my choice gun I guess. But as far as someone coming in and killing the family, I don't think they could without me atleast seeing them first. I have a decent warning system working in my favor. I am safer where I am than most.

reply to post by Camperguy
I have tought soccer for 13 yrs or so and it really gives you a outlook on there family life. It amazes me the disconnect, drama, issues, etc. of parents now a days. Over the years it had become worse. I am pretty sure this has an affect in these sort of events as well.

reply to post by Fireman205253


Ah a bow. That can work in some cases for sure. I assume this day in age you mean a compound bow? I get funny looks from people when I tell them I hunt with a handcarved longbow during hunting season

Either way really, a kid under 14 or so doesn't have a chance drawing either a longbow or a compound

Originally posted by streetfightingman
I was just thinking what if an amendment to the NDAA is passed and signed that states
that no ammunition is to be imported nationally or sold domestically.

Ammo ban to stop shootings? No different than a gun ban. Its alot easier to reload a shell than manufacture a firearm. I think the UN is working on a global small arms transfer ban law. Kind of like it being illegal to transfer drugs across the border.

Bill

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


The two girls I had custody of, both had .22's by 12. Hiding guns like a dirty secret is retarded IMO, but then, I am a country boy. Been shooting since 5 when I got a red rider bb gun, didn't shoot my eye out!, I think I was 8 when I got my pumpmaster 760 pelletgun, I know I was 10 when I got my first .22.