Armed security in schools, yes or no.

I agree with you man, more guns and guns in school is not the answer. Why this person had access to weapons and what the mother did, did not or thought she could do, what kind of treatment was this person getting, was he under a doctor's supervision, was he taking or supposed to be taking any medications, what were the warning signs. Those are the real questions here, guns only play a role in this madness.
IMO I think there has to be a more formalized and standardized relationship between the court system and the mental health system. When people find their way into this system and they are supposed to be under a doctor's care and/or on meds, if they do not stay in the program they should be remanded for their own and society's safety.

 

Rich I agree with you brother. the analogy was GUN violence, not violence in general. Guns are used to cause GUN deaths, the fact is that they are easy to get and use, and they are very reliable and effective. Guns are a component to the problem. Not the sole answer, more guns or less.

You spoke of Mexico. The violence down there is cartel on cartel mostly, plenty of guns there.

 

And none have been from destitute homes where medical/mental care was not available.

They were the products of homes where the parents didn't care to realize that their child had a problem.
Or perhaps they did, and were poo-poo'd by the school system, or rushed through the mental health system.

My mother-in-law is dead by her own hand.
Over the 10 years that I knew her, she had been on two 72 hour holds.
Each time, she persuaded the doctors that things were not what they appeared, my wife and I were making things up, and she was fine.
Well... she's resting comfortably now.


The mental health care system is broken, but it's not an issue of "affordable" mental health care... it's the same problem with physical health care/HMOs, or pretty much any other customer-service industry.


It is a fundamental problem that the State Mental Hospital system was dismantled during Reagan era budget cuts. Followup care was to be provided, but the logistics of getting the patients in for care was never worked out and funded. That created the homeless problem of the late 80s and early 90s.
These homeless people were not "welfare cases", they were unemployable. They were mentally ill.

So that set the stage.

Now, in our school system, students with special needs are in the same classes with everyone else. They hold the gifted students back, while at the same time they are not getting the level of attention they need... both in school, and at home.
2 working parents? Single parent homes? TV and computer are the parent?

All of these things have worked together to create the problems that we have now.

 

Thank you Rich, I was wondering if anyone was going to mention the Reagan cuts

 

different subject here, I have a very intimate knowledge from my wifes experiences over the last twenty or so years with this one. I f you want to debate this point, we should PM.
You are right on point with the bulk of your post. well said sir.

 

Violence is violence.
Adding the term "gun" oversimplifies the problem and makes it appear as if legislating guns out of existence will make violence go away.

It might make some GUN violence go away (and not all), but that will simply be replaced by some other form of violence.

The cartels also target civilians, tourists, and political and law enforcement. Anyone who might be a threat or is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And yes, there are plenty of guns there and they are all illegal.
Banning guns here would have the same effect.

It's the old bumper sticker slogan... when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Criminals will not give up their guns and will always be able to get them.
The LAC will follow the law and surrender his guns, and he will be left defenseless.

 

I could be wrong but I thought the people who were behind the rash of mass shootings were NOT known criminals. I know it's not the only answer but when is going to be considered at least part of the answer. Australia had this very problem and instituted a buyback program to get the guns off the streets. The number of incidences plummeted to near zero to this day. Are people so afraid of loosing ALL their guns entirely that they won't stand for even a little regulation? Why does anyone really need a thirty plus round magazine? How about a hundred round magazine? Is it just to feel powerful at the range? I have had guns my entire life. Target and hunting. I never thought my life was incomplete because I did not have a thiry round magazine or a suppressor. I am LCC in Ma. (not easy) and never felt the need, must be where I live?

 

we don't need it BUT, it's america, america was built around common people having freedom.
being told we can have this and not that IS NOT freedom.

 

I know,. a slippery slope. I am tired of that one. Next thing you know, I will have to give up my drugs, or explosives, or driving over 65 mph.We even have to wear a helmet on a motorcycle here. Hell I have to wear a seat belt now. Feels like Russia to me...... Merry Christmas all!!!

 

if your serious props to you for looking ~10 years ahead, if your being sarcastic then i feel sorry for you.

 

Ditto.

I don't need 12 rifles and 25 handguns, but there is no justification to prevent me from owning them provided I keep them away from people who can not handle guns responsibly, either through past actions or age... or simply my discretion.

30rd mag? 100rd drum?
Ya... they are legal in most states.
What does it matter whether or not I NEED them?
I don't NEED a backyard swimming pool. Ban them.
Point is, whether the magazine capacity is 30 rounds or 10 rounds, it can be just as deadly.
A 6-shot single action "cowboy" revolver can kill 6 people.
How many mass shootings have involved more than 5 or 10 targets?
How many of those did the perp have time to reload between targets?

 

So, after an evening of L-tryptophan, wine, and family politics, the question remains the same. Why, all of a sudden, are people talking about gun laws in America. It's because an upper\middle-class citizen murdered other upper\middle-class citizens with guns. Black on black, brown on brown, white on black and brown gun murders are swept under the carpet. But, if a wealthy, mentally challenged white American kills other white Americans, look what will dominate the news........Welcome to the real world people. If children bully other children with mental disorders, this is what happens....I own guns, and I love owning them and using them. But, until the real problems are addressed in this country and this country alone, be prepared to ball your eyes out every few years.

 

A single death is not noticed.
A dozen deaths is a tragedy.
A million deaths is a statistic.

Individuals of every race are killed every day and it doesn't hit the media.
Fact is, it is GENERALLY not the black or brown person that goes batshit crazy and kills a dozen or more people. It is usually a fairly intelligent white male "around" 20-30 years old.

But if this had happened at a school in Compton or El Centro, the media coverage would not be any different.... though they might be more sympathetic to a black or brown perp.
They've been chomping at the bit to find a reason to bring gun control back to the forefront ever since the 1994 ban expired almost 10 years ago.

 

This will always be a topic of heated discussion. If we put armed guards in schools, then it is easy to argue that we have to put them in malls, movie theatres, parks, etc, etc, etc. Do we really need a society where everyone is armed?? Most people that have guns do not carry in public places, thus they can not prevent anything. Here is a pretty good viewpoint that I found a while back:


whythe gun is civilization.


Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reasonand force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of eitherconvincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat offorce. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, withoutexception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact throughpersuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and theonly thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, asparadoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reasonand try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat oremployment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-poundwoman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equalfooting with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footingwith a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparityin physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and adefender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad forceequations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if allguns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a muggerto do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victimsare mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validitywhen most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for thebanning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many,and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armedone, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has grantedhim a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal thatotherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in severalways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superiorparty inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists,bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, wherepeople take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The factthat the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weakerdefender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. Thegun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as itis in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a forceequalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but becauseI'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced,only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables meto be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact withme through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. Itremoves force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilizedact.

 

its a crazy world out there...filled with crazy people...armed security or not--theres always that crazy f*ck that accomplishes what hes set out to do...we should be focusing more on what actually causes school shootings than hiring more fat out of shape security guards that barely know how to operate their gun..ive only seen one in shape school guard and the guy had a taser not a gun....

 

Ok I dont know why I'm getting back into this, but I had to set the record straight on your mistakes. After looking at genuine STATISTICS and talking to a couple of friends I know that have lived in australia all their life I can tell you your facts are wrong. In both Australia and the UK after guns were taken away from the general population violent crimes went UP. To this day home invasions by armed men are a VERY common thing.

 

Forget poorly trained security guards. This (public protection) is exactly what we pay police officers to do. Many schools today have hundreds or even thousands of students. Where else would you have so many without at least some form of police presence? Each school should have several uniformed police officers, with larger schools having perhaps a dozen or more.

 

Give your guns to Jee-bus....it's his birthday!

 

Didn't read this entire thread to see if this was mentioned (I'm assuming it was), but while I am for armed guards in schools, shouldn't that be implemented at the local level? In other words, I don't think we need a federally appointed guard in every school. The way our system is set up right now, any school district should be able to vote to hire said guard or work with a local police department to get a assigned officer. Again, I do not think we need more federal influence of any kind in our schools or our country for that matter. All IMO.