NRA wants armed guards in schools

reply to post by RedmoonMWC

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

I would have to say 'depends'. Alot of variables, type of armor (ceramic, dragon scales, composite etc), angle of the shot, type of round etc.....

Needles to say, in that type scenario, it is possible for youi to commit unintentional collateral damage while trying to protect. And I think it would be hard to get a headshot when your crapping your pants as 7.62 rounds fly past.

Originally posted by esdad71
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

Good for you guys! Someone actually taking a stand. Its people like you that keep my faith in humanity.

Bill

reply to post by Grimpachi

the only difference is the owner of the one that hasn’t has a sign in front that states that he is armed.

So the answer is to print signs saying 'This school is Armed'?

reply to post by ErEhWoN


My apologies I assumed you were an anti-gun person. I have to disagree about armed guards at schools. It is not a new idea; most of the schools I went to growing up had them. It would have given those kids a chance.

The reality is there that there will not be a repeal of any type to the 2nd amendment and I oppose anyone trying to. Semi-automatic weapons are here to stay and even if they stopped selling them or allowing the sales it wouldn’t change anything. There are too many already on the market so a ban would only affect new owners because everything else would be grandfathered in. these schools need to be protected. The only way to do that is making sure every school has an armed guard at them many already do but it needs to be mandatory for all.

There is never going to be a guarantee but there are ways to increase the chances for our children.

reply to post by vonclod


No one does

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
What you describe is a nightmare.

No, having your child killed while at school is a nightmare. Having your child abducted during school hours when you thought they were supposed to be safe, that's a nightmare. Having armed security at a place that is at risk is not a nightmare that I'm familiar with. I'd sooner send my child to a school with an armed security guard than one without, and sooner still to one with an unarmed guard as opposed to none at all.

There's a mall across the street from where I live here in New Jersey. It gets a fair amount of traffic, especially around this time of year. Needless to say, crime became a problem. Nothing so serious as shootings, but safety was certainly an issue. You know what they did? They put a police outpost right inside the mall. Is it crime free now? No. Is it safer than it was? Yes. Since when was a mall more important than our children?

Mass shootings are kind of like common crime in some ways. You can't stop them all. It's just not possible. Even with all the security in the world, mass shootings will still happen so long as the weapons exist, as they always will. What I'm merely suggesting is that we don't paint a target on the schools our children attend by leaving it the only place incapable of defending itself. We owe our kids that much.

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

the only difference is the owner of the one that hasn’t has a sign in front that states that he is armed.

So the answer is to print signs saying 'This school is Armed'?

How about this school is protected.

Instead of gun free zone which is the same as saying this school is unprotected.

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

the only difference is the owner of the one that hasn’t has a sign in front that states that he is armed.

So the answer is to print signs saying 'This school is Armed'?

How about this school is protected.

Instead of gun free zone which is the same as saying this school is unprotected.

reply to post by rational1


Which part?

Everyone seems to already have their minds made up about this subject. At this point it appears to be more about bull-dozing over anyone that disagrees with what they have decided.

ATS isn't about bull-dozing over people you disagree with, it's about open and honest discussion. I understand some people get a lot of happiness and thrill from drilling home their point to the point where they feel they have bullied someone else down and have 'won', but come on. Closed minds = narrow minds.

Try to remember to stay open to ideas and points of view.

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.

your idea has some merit, there needs to be some responcibility..im pretty sure we by law have to keep firearms locked up or have trigger locks

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
So people are okay with it being more of a police state, as long as Guns are allowed?

how does this define common sense or logic?

People are saying that the children should be protected, in a place the law requires them to be. Personally, I would have the teachers and school staff carry. Concealed would be best, so those thinking of pulling some nonsense would not know who could take them down.

Protecting kids at school doesn't mean a police state. It simply means treating them as human beings of value. Clearly, the nuts and terrorists target kids. See the link I posted just a bit ago.

Again, if we protect banks, sporting events, politicians, and so forth with armed guards, why not schools?

The government requires school for all children. REQUIRES it. Parents can either place them in public school, or pay for private (which many can't afford), or home school (which isn't possible for everyone). Then, the government declares schools to be "gun free zones". The shooters don't mind that rule a bit. They go anyway, and they know they go in unopposed.

I do NOT think armed guards every place is a good idea. I think citizens should be armed. Let us defend ourselves. People already do, in many places around the country, and almost never do we hear of a legally carrying armed citizen flying off the handle and killing people. Instead, we see lower crime rates. Every single time. We don't need the police for that; we can handle it ourselves. Legally, under rules for self defense, but it can be done. It has been done. No lawlessness required. No police state required. Simple exercise of our 2'nd Amendment rights.

The Swiss have guns as a matter of course, and they don't see much of these issues. I used to work with a very fine gentleman from Switzerland, who thought the gun control stuff in the United States was insane.

edit on 21-12-2012 by LadyGreenEyes because: added comments

First School should not be required for anyone, it is more Mind control than various Telly programs and other sources many state are 'Brainwashing', school is the ultimate Brain Washing technique, teaching 'What' they want

i digress

and who is to say a Teacher doesn't go 'Psycho' and start shooting up the school? look what has happened to the police force with the surge of 'Power Control' look at the innocent they bully

who is too say anyone that has access to guns wont go 'Psycho' and start shooting, there is no guarantee, we know that, but why put that risk factor involved?

it isn't Freedom if someone is forcing you to do it to protect freedoms, same with The Constitution as a whole, We are being dictated by people far before are time, the only true Freedom is not being told what to do, or following what those before wrote as 'Law'

there is no definite answer, but i don't see how increasing police, increasing Guns in a place where you don't want violence

reply to post by vonclod


I didn't know if it was a law or just common sense. I hope it's a law.

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.

reply to post by PrincessTofu


Pretty sure it is. Just like you have to have ammo locked up too

Originally posted by BigfootNZ

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
So people are okay with it being more of a police state, as long as Guns are allowed?

how does this define common sense or logic?

Their Americans remember, and we all know how Americans feel about their long metallic projectile throwers... do anything you can to fix a problem, just dont even for an instant take their gun god away from them to do so.

(And yes I know the majority of Americans arent pro gun nuts but damn if the pro gun nuts arent loud enough to make it feel that way)

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.

cheers Sir!

reply to post by Fireman205253


In that case, maybe we could benefit from some harsher penalties for failing to follow that law.

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
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.

History has proven that people will do crazy things if they want to. Guns taken from the hands of law abiding citizens won't stop gun crimes, either. We can't magically remove all guns from the world in one move. Besides, if some clown came into my house with a big knife, or a club, I would still want a gun to shoot him before he got to my kids or myself. Why risk injury getting closer?

I have seen a LOT of people blame things other than the criminal. The person that was addressed to wanted to blame legal gun owners that were robbed of their guns for crimes the criminals committed with those guns.

reply to post by watchitburn


school marshals, just like air marshals.

general public knows who they are, or when they are there, but they are there spread around as a deterrent. and everyone knows they could be anywhere. we have a lot of veterans, former police, etc who could be more than up to this job and would provide honest work for them.

teachers too. i would absolutely be OK with properly trained teachers having access to guns through a lockbox in their desk or something.

one hears gunshots going off in the class next door, they can get to it and protect who they can.


when was the last time one of these kook school shooters shot up a police station?

and if its my kid who is in the sad situation of being in a school where a shooter shows up, would i rather them be in a shooting gallery with a liberal gun control teacher who says to sit and wait for cops to come, or to die defenseless huddling in a corner, OR a trained, armed teacher who can take down the threat be present? gee, let me think.....

what would YOU do if it were YOUR kid? which situation would YOU choose?

Originally posted by Camperguy
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

I know my sister would, too, and a cousin I have that teaches. I think most parents would, as well.

How many times do we have to have killings in a gun free zone before people wise up?