Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Concerning Armed Schools

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Concerning Armed Schools

    I had something I want to vent about. Every time a shooting happens and we start talking about hardening our schools we inevitably get a certain political breed of people that show up and start shrieking "we don't need more guns in this situation, are you crazy?"

    This is supposed to be a history forum so one would expect members to know some basic historical facts. One of them is that mankind's go to solution for deadly predators, be they animal or man, is better fortifications and better weapons. And we keep going for this solution because it works. The building of safe societies has always involved hardening vulnerable targets until the current predator is sufficiently discouraged. That's civilization 101. It started with ancient man making walls out of thornbushes and now we have keycards and firearms. Yet for some unearthly reason when our schoolchildren come under attack we have a faction arguing that we SHOULDN'T use the one mainstay that has always worked: make it harder for the predator to get in, make it easier to kill the predator if it does. Upgrade as needed until threat ceases to be an issue.

    And the thing of it is, they don't bat an eye at any other facet of society to employ armed security. Celebrities using armed security? No complaints. Gated communities with armed security? Not a peep. Armed security at factories, offices, and other places of business? No problem. But mention hardening our schools and they lose their . They act like we're sliding into some kind of dystopia if we give schools the same level of hardening that my small town factory has. For some reason they want schools to be exclusively helpless.

    Civilization has always been an arms race against predators - both of animal and human variety. It's always been that way and never stopped being that way. And for most of human history, man generally wanted the place where his children were to be the MOST heavily protected area, not the least. But here we see the exact opposite. These fellas will send a brigade to save George Clooney's good looks yet when you propose similar measures for a school, NOW all of a sudden it's "we don't need more guns! Are you nuts?" Schools are the one place where they think upgunning your security is taboo.

    It's obnoxious.

    Okay here's my soap box for the next guy that wants it.
    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

  • #2
    pirate, I can't rep you so soon. You are completely right.

    The answer is armed staff. It and security doors on every classroom are the only solutions.

    That which is valuable is protected by armed people.

    The situation will not change until more people accept that children are valuable.

    Fortunately, in Texas at least, armed school staff policies are multiplying fast, as are the staff who ignore current prohibitions.
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #3
      Opposing armed teachers and staff should not be interpreted as supporting vulnerability. I think any examination of modern schools and policy will show the increase in security over the past fifteen years. Fences, better doors, active shooter drills, armed resource officers, codes, stricter rules, security cameras, etc.

      I don't oppose firearms in schools. I simply think the armed person should be dedicated to security not education. More importantly, its my belief we should be more concerned with addressing the factors that give rise to acts of violence among our youth. Our mental health care system is a wreck. A lack of funding and continuing stigmas mean kids are turning to poor solutions.

      I think its also important to keep in mind mass shootings, though always tragic, are rare when you consider school violence as a whole. (fights, kids bringing guns to school, and the threat of violent behavior - like gang repping, and bullying)

      Finally, I personally don't find it crazy to think arming teachers and staff is a solution. After all, the purpose is protect kids, not promote gun proliferation. I just disagree.
      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

      Comment


      • #4
        Of course, your argument then falls flat when you refuse to make it harde for these predators to have fangs. You can't have the cake and eat it too.
        Wisdom is personal

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Karri View Post
          Of course, your argument then falls flat when you refuse to make it harde for these predators to have fangs. You can't have the cake and eat it too.
          There are thousands of laws already on the books designed to keep weapons out of the hands of the predators. Problem is, they are rarely enforced when the predators breaks them.


          In this latest shooting, the weapons used, a shotgun and hand gun, were taken from the parent's. They were not purchased at the local gun store due to his age, from a gun show, stolen in a robbery, or purchased from the Black Market on the streets.



          When you make it harder for the predators to get weapons by placing a general ban on everyone, you only disarm the law abiding. Look at the prisons. Those predators in them manage to get weapons that can kill. They are either smuggled in, stolen off the guards, or manufactured from some other object.


          Hands make good weapons to kill. Are we going to cut off hands, like they do in Muslim countries, in order to keep those predators from using them to commit a crime?
          “Breaking News,”

          “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Deltapooh View Post
            Opposing armed teachers and staff should not be interpreted as supporting vulnerability. I think any examination of modern schools and policy will show the increase in security over the past fifteen years. Fences, better doors, active shooter drills, armed resource officers, codes, stricter rules, security cameras, etc.
            Other than SROs, they are useless against school shooters.

            Originally posted by Deltapooh View Post
            I don't oppose firearms in schools. I simply think the armed person should be dedicated to security not education. More importantly, its my belief we should be more concerned with addressing the factors that give rise to acts of violence among our youth. Our mental health care system is a wreck. A lack of funding and continuing stigmas mean kids are turning to poor solutions.
            Well, your wrong, and mistaken. Wrong in thinking that security will be provided in meaningful numbers, and mistaken if you think that we can work around the current MH crisis in time to make any sort of difference.

            MH treatment in this country was a joke when I started in LE, and when I retired after 30-odd years it was no better.

            It's not just funding, it is a disastrous shortage of educated professionals, existing case law, and the simple fact that it requires the full cooperation of the individual involved. The latter two are the biggest obstacles, and there is no hint of improvement in sight.

            Originally posted by Deltapooh View Post
            I think its also important to keep in mind mass shootings, though always tragic, are rare when you consider school violence as a whole. (fights, kids bringing guns to school, and the threat of violent behavior - like gang repping, and bullying)
            This is true. But a little playground bullying doesn't make the national news.

            Originally posted by Deltapooh View Post
            Finally, I personally don't find it crazy to think arming teachers and staff is a solution. After all, the purpose is protect kids, not promote gun proliferation. I just disagree.
            Until the belief that children have value reaches wide acceptance, there won't be any change.

            Given that few seem to care that they are receiving substandard educations from the public schools, I don't expect any real change.

            There are fewer major cash heists each year than there are school shootings, but there isn't a bank in this country that moves large sums except by armored car services employing armed guards.

            Because money has value.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment


            • #7
              The best idea I have heard on the subject is to hire and employ retired military personnel as security officers in addition to the resource officers already assigned.

              There are too many problems associated with the idea of arming teachers. Do they openly carry them in front of the kids? If not, where do they put them? If the weapons are not secured, they could be used by some idiot already in school. What type of training would you give to teachers in order to arm them and who is going to pay for it?

              And do you force teachers to carry weapons, or is it voluntary?

              Just saying 'arm the teachers and other school personnel' is not a solution and is not well thought out.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                ...as are the staff who ignore current prohibitions.
                In many states if you ignore the current law and bring a weapon to a school, you're committing a felony. Is that what you are 'advocating'?

                Comment


                • #9
                  The permanent fix is to identify why these individuals are being put in a position where they can do these acts. It should be obvious we need some sort of mechanism or system that can deal effectively with such kids before they act. I hold ZERO hope that will happen if Progressives have ANY say in the system.

                  As for the interim... I have repeatedly suggested that schools be equipped with less than lethal munitions such as pepper spray for teachers, pepper ball guns for trained staff, and the like. These might not completely stop a shooter or violent student, but they could go a long way to slowing him (its almost always a him) down and reducing the casualty list.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You've left out ...

                    Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                    I had something I want to vent about. Every time a shooting happens and we start talking about hardening our schools we inevitably get a certain political breed of people that show up and start shrieking "we don't need more guns in this situation, are you crazy?"

                    This is supposed to be a history forum so one would expect members to know some basic historical facts. One of them is that mankind's go to solution for deadly predators, be they animal or man, is better fortifications and better weapons. And we keep going for this solution because it works. The building of safe societies has always involved hardening vulnerable targets until the current predator is sufficiently discouraged. That's civilization 101. It started with ancient man making walls out of thornbushes and now we have keycards and firearms. Yet for some unearthly reason when our schoolchildren come under attack we have a faction arguing that we SHOULDN'T use the one mainstay that has always worked: make it harder for the predator to get in, make it easier to kill the predator if it does. Upgrade as needed until threat ceases to be an issue.

                    And the thing of it is, they don't bat an eye at any other facet of society to employ armed security. Celebrities using armed security? No complaints. Gated communities with armed security? Not a peep. Armed security at factories, offices, and other places of business? No problem. But mention hardening our schools and they lose their . They act like we're sliding into some kind of dystopia if we give schools the same level of hardening that my small town factory has. For some reason they want schools to be exclusively helpless.

                    Civilization has always been an arms race against predators - both of animal and human variety. It's always been that way and never stopped being that way. And for most of human history, man generally wanted the place where his children were to be the MOST heavily protected area, not the least. But here we see the exact opposite. These fellas will send a brigade to save George Clooney's good looks yet when you propose similar measures for a school, NOW all of a sudden it's "we don't need more guns! Are you nuts?" Schools are the one place where they think upgunning your security is taboo.

                    It's obnoxious.

                    Okay here's my soap box for the next guy that wants it.
                    ... the human element, which is more important than weapons. When civilization became serious about combating its enemies, it went to well trained, disciplined, professional, standing armies; amateurs couldn't cut it.

                    Look at American history, the hodgepodge farmers of the Provincial Militias and Rangers could kill Indians, but were consistently beaten by the savvy, better trained and the professionals when met; the vast majority of Americans were no damn good at fighting in the bush. The effectiveness of the Minuteman in the Revolution is largely myth, they weren't any better than the Provincials; Washington, well versed from his days in Provincial Militias, prevailed in large part because he was able to build and train a real army. The same thing happened early in the War of 1812, American largely amateur invaders were sent back across the border by core small forces of well led professionals. Moving forward to the days of the Wild US West, as settlements got larger and became towns, the civilized ones hired "Lawmen" with experience, and enacted ordinances restricting firearms within town boundaries.

                    Now you want to arm school teachers, right? When I think of teachers with guns I'm reminded of George Bernard Shaw's quip, "He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches". I had some great teachers, I have no intention of insulting teachers on this board, but I can't see any of my liberal arts major, History and English teachers, and the nerdy Science and Math types "packing"; Phys. Ed. types, maybe, one of my football coaches, definitely not. I think it possible that any of them could very well be among the first targets of the twisted teen with a gun and a bone to pick.

                    Keeping strictly with armed protection of students at school (not that I necessarily agree with it), I would suggest that Mr. Trump, if serious could open up the public wallet and legislate an armed school security position, filled by a rotating contractor pool of trained and "certified professionals" meeting set psych, physical and training standards, covering school days, with police co-ordination and oversight. Pay and benefits would be on par or slightly less than the lowest paid full time teacher in the school. I'm think'in a quasi school Blackwater provider, no duds allowed. Just Saturday morning musing ...
                    Last edited by Marmat; 19 May 18, 12:01.
                    "I am Groot"
                    - Groot

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I can't see that type of teacher/academic being armed either.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Arming teachers is waving the white flag and giving up on our youth and the problems they're facing. I think it's a really sad state of affairs if this is what we have to resort to. If this is the answer, we've lost and failed as a society.

                        I also agree that this is the job of dedicated security and not teachers.
                        "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                        - Benjamin Franklin

                        The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                          Arming teachers is waving the white flag and giving up on our youth and the problems they're facing. I think it's a really sad state of affairs if this is what we have to resort to. If this is the answer, we've lost and failed as a society.

                          I also agree that this is the job of dedicated security and not teachers.

                          Who gives a ****? If it saves lives it saves lives.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                            I had something I want to vent about. Every time a shooting happens and we start talking about hardening our schools we inevitably get a certain political breed of people that show up and start shrieking "we don't need more guns in this situation, are you crazy?"

                            This is supposed to be a history forum so one would expect members to know some basic historical facts. One of them is that mankind's go to solution for deadly predators, be they animal or man, is better fortifications and better weapons. And we keep going for this solution because it works. The building of safe societies has always involved hardening vulnerable targets until the current predator is sufficiently discouraged. That's civilization 101. It started with ancient man making walls out of thornbushes and now we have keycards and firearms. Yet for some unearthly reason when our schoolchildren come under attack we have a faction arguing that we SHOULDN'T use the one mainstay that has always worked: make it harder for the predator to get in, make it easier to kill the predator if it does. Upgrade as needed until threat ceases to be an issue.

                            And the thing of it is, they don't bat an eye at any other facet of society to employ armed security. Celebrities using armed security? No complaints. Gated communities with armed security? Not a peep. Armed security at factories, offices, and other places of business? No problem. But mention hardening our schools and they lose their . They act like we're sliding into some kind of dystopia if we give schools the same level of hardening that my small town factory has. For some reason they want schools to be exclusively helpless.

                            Civilization has always been an arms race against predators - both of animal and human variety. It's always been that way and never stopped being that way. And for most of human history, man generally wanted the place where his children were to be the MOST heavily protected area, not the least. But here we see the exact opposite. These fellas will send a brigade to save George Clooney's good looks yet when you propose similar measures for a school, NOW all of a sudden it's "we don't need more guns! Are you nuts?" Schools are the one place where they think upgunning your security is taboo.

                            It's obnoxious.

                            Okay here's my soap box for the next guy that wants it.
                            I agree with you, all the way. I do think, though, that we need to "harden" our laws, too, and start executing people who refuse to obey them. This problem goes deep into our failing society, and it has to come out at the roots.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
                              Who gives a ****? If it saves lives it saves lives.
                              Lives won't be saved until we address the core issue.
                              "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                              - Benjamin Franklin

                              The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X