Armed security in schools, yes or no.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

well im unsubbing. This thread has derailed too much off the original topic. And when it comes to the original topic the OP is more concerned about laws that would make him feel safe but even he admits he has no real idea about how to implement it successfully and he ignores the rest because of the "what ifs". This is a victim mentality, and those are usually set in stone until their world comes crashing down. its like arguing with a wall, and I feel my time would be better spent else where, like watching grass grow. Peace.

 

What exactly are these teachers protecting their students FROM? Terrorists? Lightning Bolts? Drowning the bathtub? Plane crashes? De-pussify yourselves.

 

your point fails BECAUSE teachers for the most part have zero desire to carry weapons. If they did, they would be LEO's. Teachers want to teach, thats their purpose. How would you feel if you were asked to run the prison system or do some profession your hate, let alone be responsible for? What makes teacher safe if someone decides to freak out and start shooting? they don't sign up for that shit, they sign up to teach kids and care for kids, not shoot it out over them. I have never met a teacher who isinterested in carrying a weapon and wearing body armor. I know dozens of teachers across several schools systems.You would need a cop in every room to be effective, but not perfect.

 

I think the most effective thing would to not let our children out of our house, or rather, one room of the house. PB&J under the door sort of thing.

 

x2

I'm pretty sure getting in gun fights isn't part of the job description of a teacher.

 

Did you just change the analogy, then disagree with it? I agree with your other points tho

 

Number is too high. But exactly the right diagnosis.

 

i would say no go just better regulated entrances etc...

 

You know, once Austria was annexed by Germany under Hitler, many of it's citizens were happy to increase the government's involvement in their children's school time in exchange for feeling protected.

 

I suspect this thread would be much different if the posters were required to list their education, training and experience which qualifies them to speak on matters of security and safety especially as it relates to armed confrontation and the criminal mindset.

Perhaps before you type you should ask yourself what qualifications you possess which lends itself to speak on the subject.

Just a suggestion, Merry Christmas

 

I have been a parent for 20+ years looking out for the safety of my child and family, and I have seen and caused violence, I am plenty qualified to speak on this subject.

 

Good, yes I am the one that is not listening here. (sarcasm). I don't have the answer, just think that an arms race is not the answer. Are you so smart that you think you know the answer?

 

I guess by that logic I could say I have been traveling by air for over 4 decades and have played multiple very realistic flying games, I am more than qualified to fly jets.

 

Then it wouldn't be the internet.

 

No.

The media and the gun grabbers use the term "gun violence" because that makes it impossible to separate the "gun" from the "violence", which leads to illogical comparisons such as cigarettes and lung cancer.

"Addressing" the gun will not reduce violence... it will simply change it's form.
The gun is not the cause of gun violence... the criminal is the cause of a violent act, and his choice of a gun as a tool reclassifies the violence as "gun violence" for the convenience of those who would lobby to ban guns.

Addressing the cigarettes will indeed reduce lung cancer, and that cancer will not reappear in another form.

 

Word

 

Do you have kids that you have raised since birth?

 

I think it's the mentally ill mindset. Every event has been a mentally ill subject. I am not an authority at all regarding armed confrontation. My wife is a high school guidance counciler with a masters in child psychology and 23 years experience. I know what I hear from her and a slew of her friends and administrators in the school systems. They don't care to carry weapons, period. They also don't want armed security in the schools.

 

Prop 58, or whatever it was.

The idiot voters in this state voted for a prop that tied the education budget to the total budget.
That number is mandated at 55% (and I believe that includes college, the 67 billion number I posted was K-12 only and includes Prop-58 money as well as federal funding).

Why was that done? It was presented to us when the economy was good.
"Your tax dollars are being wasted on welfare and the schools aren't getting their fair share"

So they voted for it.

Now, the economy is in the tank and budgets need to be cut (and not actually cut, just not increased as much as they wanted).
Well.. the state budget can't be cut without 55% of those cuts coming from the educational system.

So now when any cuts are requested, we are bombarded with "think of the children"