DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on December 19, 2012, 12:25:45 AM
-
Let's address Plane's' serious question......What would make schools safer
Let's start with the easiest and least costly
- Clear signs posted that indicate This school patrolled by armed guards. Don't even have to have armed guards, just the sign and verbal statements by staff that they do indeed have them, will provide an initial deterrent
How's that for a start? Doesn't infringe on any rights, doesn't impact the law abiding citizen in any way, and removes the kill zone aura of a "gun free zone"
-
The Sandy Hook school had a door with an electronic lock , such that ordinary entry required someone on the inside to "buzz you in".
Unfortunately it also featured a large glass pane.
The first suggestion is going to be diffrent for each building and grounds , so improvement in phisical security is not simple , but it is uncontroversial so lets get started on that so that something effective can be begun.
So , bars across all glass panes large enough to enter through, hindsight can be painfull.
Fire safety requires that there be a way to open these bars from the inside , so perhaps a latch that is easy to work but can't be reached from the outside.
Non leathal wepons in trusted hands inside the school , some of the teachers and staff at Sandy Hook behaved with great valor , but they were empty handed. A mace spray or a tazer would have been inadequate , definately , but nothing at all is also inadequate and nothing is all they had on hand.
Lastly Firearms and serious firearms training for some of the staff, I don't think it possible to train and arm everyone , so no firearms without the training program, and no certifacation as a school untill a minimum number of trained and armed teachers and staff are reached.
None of these ideas are origional , just my favoriates.
-
i would not use armed teachers the logistics is just too hard. what about armed monitors. many schools has adult hall monitors to make sure kids get to ther classes on time. it just means that jobs now covers lower grades.
-
Arming teachers is a dumb idea, and would surely result in MORE deaths and arming hall monitors would mean paying more to staff the school. Current security people are not qualified to carry firearms. Neither of these is likely.
-
meant not use armed teachers
armed guards is viable but the training MUST be more exstensive then what is presently done now. possibly differing grade level of armed guard.
as i stated on another post a regular armed would more likely get killed first , the practice time required is simply not enough to get those guards to react quickly enough. very reason we hear off duty officers in stories but very few guards in the news. but not to cast a bad rep on the guards. the good ones simply go on to be cops or other related fields. security is mostly a stop over for most folks. very few stay long like me . but musem security is a different animal . most guards are long term in museums. we come for the pay we stay for the art.
-
I think I would first designate certain department heads or teachers that were willing and send them to Concealed Weapons classes as well as extra gun safety classes. Get them certified in shooting and self defense. Have them attend yearly classes. Most teachers get all kinds of certification updates anyway. Depending on the size of the school have 2-4 school employees that are willing to take part. I think we are probably headed towards an off-duty policeman at every school, but it wouldn't hurt to have a few extra lines of defense and offsets Kimba's worries that they might kill the one armed guard first.....I am not nearly as worried as Kimba about that....but have 2-4 armed employees besides the off duty officer solves it.
Of course none of this is entirely preventable. All the gvt nannies want to rush in and pretend they have the answers....PASS SOME F-ing NEW LAWS! All the "solutions" have potential downsides. If we have off-duty police officers....one of them could go off the deep end and kill the kids, if we have armed teachers or a couple of armed teachers....they could go off the deep end and kill the kids....plumbers working at the schools could kill the kids.....hell the postman could sneak a gun in and kill the kids...are we gonna run out and pass a bunch of new laws every time something happens?....Ok lets say pass a bunch of laws and make it harder for mental whackjobs to get guns....um well this kid stole his mother's guns...LETS PASS A LAW AGAINST MOTHERS WITH WHACKJOB KIDS! Ok lets pass a law outlawing new Bushmaster sales....Oooops there are only 200 million guns left out there that could kill kids!
-
Well said, C 8)
-
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/45038_473028909422139_623266470_n.jpg)
-
off the deep end hmm
not saying empoyees are prone to do this but it`s does make me think that people who lose it does tend to target schools.
nobody is asking why? low security only means he picked the school but thats not the cause,he would likely just find another target.
-
low security only means he picked the school but thats not the cause,he would likely just find another target.
You're excatly right Kimba....as soon as the schools are protected with guns....the whackjobs will move along to easier targets....they will hit daycares, more malls, parks, public swimming pools, sporting events. Targets are endless.....I attend college football games...at the entry gates they barely look in our bags....my buddies sneak bottles of booze in, I sneek in (banned) noise-makers.....most security is "window dressing" but even "window dressing" serves a very important purpose. Guys driving around in golf carts in mall parking lots with a silly flashing red light prevent all kinds of crime.
-
Don't forget physical layout. I believe children school are naturally more open than high schools. Meaning the look of a school may draw these nutjob to them. I could be wrong but children school alot more open than the older kid schools.
Also a security risk
-
When there is a massacre in a school, it gets a lot more publicity than a drive-by shooting. But seriously, there will never be a day when all schools have armed guards.
-
Apparently or professor of students, doesn't think our children need any upgrade in protecting them. Sad
-
It is rather stupid to believe that they will ever put armed guard in every school in the US. That would be very expensive and is simply NEVER going to happen.
It has nothing to do with whether I favor doing this or not. It is like saying that McDonald's will never serve ratburgers or fired pumpkin: it will never happen.
-
It is rather stupid to believe that they will ever put armed guard in every school in the US. That would be very expensive and is simply NEVER going to happen.
Ah bullshit....many High Schools already have cops.
We can send BILLIONS to Islamists in Egypt.....
but cant afford off-duty cops to protect our children?
Plus PE teachers/coaches/ect....can get certified to carry.
This is not a 1 size fits all solution, there will need to be
many pieces to this puzzle....because 1 piece doesnt
solve everything you and Kimba freak out....but thats
ridiculous! Not every armed guard will always be targeted first
in fact most times they wouldn't. Get a grip and understand
complicated problems almost always need a multi-pronged
approach to help lessen a problem.
-
The federal government is not in charge of this country's schools. The federal government is not going to pay for armed guards in every school in this country. This simply WILL NOT HAPPEN, no matter how much you hate "Islamists".
It would be a lot easier to prevent crazy people from obtaining firearms, and cheaper as well.
This sort of thing is exceedingly rare in other countries and they do not have armed guards in the schools.
-
Leave it to ....well, "the left" for immediately saying something can't be paid for by the Federal Government, when i goes against the ideological mainframe, when they push every fricken program possible, to be paid for by the Federal Government.
Of course the issue here is
a) no one is saying it must be paid for by the Fed
b) its a state issue/responsibilty
c) its an OPTION, so if schools don't want to budget for the added safety, they don't have to. And let the lawsuits follow for those jurisdictions that chose to .... pay for other things......like pensions and vice principals
-
Teachers pensions are generally paid for by the states. They are not all that generous as it is. Now sirs wants to make hard working teachers pay for the result of too many guns and too many crazy people packing heat.
There is NO CHANCE that every state will pay for armed guards in every school. There is little chance that even one will.
This is simply NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. It would cost far less to have a database to identify people who should be denied firearms,and would be less effective as well.
-
What part of option are you not grasping??
Not to mention it would be far less costly, not to mention far less bureacracy, to hire trained guards carrying concealed, vs some major database, that denies firearms, based on....what?, that YOU yourself claimed is not the Federal Government's responsibility, as it relates to school safety
-
It is logically going to be far cheaper to prevent crazy people from buying firearms than to hire something like 15,000 armed guards and to put them on the payroll forever.
Only schools on the planet sirs are going to hire guards.
-
I don't think strong measures of gun controll will not be anything like cheap. There would need to be a tremendous growth of the BATF and they would have to be very busy.
Guards do not necessacerily make all that much money , and school staff that could be trained ,is already hired.
-
The federal government is not going to pay for armed guards in every school in this country.
There is NO CHANCE that every state will pay for armed guards in every school.
There is little chance that even one will.
Once again XO you are completely out of touch with the American People.
Latest Gallup Poll says 87% of the American People think police at schools is a huge part of the answer.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/stop-shootings-americans-focus-police-mental-health.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/stop-shootings-americans-focus-police-mental-health.aspx)
-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/authorities-crack-down-copycat-threats-newtown-210709195.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/authorities-crack-down-copycat-threats-newtown-210709195.html)
The amount of copycat behavior depends somewhat on how the coverage is handled in the media.
Are we willing to institute censorship , or would the media be willing to edit itself?
I am not sure it would help , how can an experiment be conducted without hurting someone?
-
It is logically going to be far cheaper to prevent crazy people from buying firearms than to hire something like 15,000 armed guards and to put them on the payroll forever.
Logic doesn't follow your scenario, when you can't identify HOW you determine/quantify who's "crazy", and who's not. Adding level after level of bureaucracy, including physicians who then have to take responsibility of signing off on who is and who isn't "crazy", and when they no longer are "crazy". You're advocating a bureaucratic nightmare which does NOTHING in prventing a "crazy" person from illegally aquiring what he needs. Logic also doesn't follow your scenario when you consider the ever growing government YOU yourself have referenced in you don't care how big it gets, so what's more employees to you, especially since its both at the statelevel and OPTIONAL
Only schools on the planet sirs are going to hire guards.
At least my kids will be far more protected & safer, while keeping the rights of those who still wish and legally able to carry a weapon, whole. I'll take that planet over Planet Oppressive, every day of the week
-
well maybe limited censorship. did the news give detail how to effectively commit such crime? I remember kansas city had alot of info on bomb making. true anyone can on thier own find that detail but not have it broadcast does lower availability.
humans by nature is a lazy . so a little prevention can do very much. ex. look how little we got terrorist attack despite how lacking our security is . people constantly poke holes at it. but it works.
-
There is a risk that if we give up a part of the first admendment , tha tthe government will continue to take more.
I think tho that I don't have to reward media that has habits I don't approve of.
-
That is what is called the "Slippery Slope" argument, a common logical fallacy.
-
That is what is called the "Slippery Slope" argument, a common logical fallacy.
I would have called it the camels nose , a well known truism.
-
It's tricky like embeded reporter giving out troop locations. It happens but does the reporter cry 1amendment?
-
This is the best blog post I have read on this subject so far.
It is a little long , and severely slanted in favor of the second admendmendment.
But it covers everything, and the writer has convincing credentials.
The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/ (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/)
-
OUCH........damn them facts
-
I have been reading on this subject for years , as have we all.
I am convinced that the most likely place to get hurt in a mass shooting is a gun free zone in a very gun restrictive state and city.
Abolishing gun free zones would very likely save lives , but this would be difficult to prove absolutely.
I think it is somewhat indicated in that the worst casualty counts are indeed in this circumstance.
-
I have been reading on this subject for years , as have we all.
I am convinced that the most likely place to get hurt in a mass shooting is a gun free zone in a very gun restrictive state and city.....I think it is somewhat indicated in that the worst casualty counts are indeed in this circumstance
100% accurate, not to mention the facts that back you up on that deduction
.
-
Finally saw one of thse gun free signs in my city. It's not in a very safe area of the city. But my town has made alot of good intention laws that tends to backfire.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/20/texas-town-teachers-guns/1781663/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/20/texas-town-teachers-guns/1781663/)
In this tiny Texas town, children and their parents don't give much thought to safety at the community's lone school — mostly because some of the teachers are carrying concealed weapons.
In remote Harrold, the nearest sheriff's office is 30 minutes away, and people tend to know — and trust — one another. So the school board voted to let teachers bring guns to school.
..................................
"You are going to put teachers, people teaching 6-year-olds in a school, and expect them to respond to an active-shooter situation?" said Ladd Everitt, a spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, who called the idea of arming teachers "madness."
-
Might work but after the age of ten would it be tough to keep the guns from the kids?
-
The most probable place for a massacre is decided by the perpetrator, who may or may not be thinking rationally. is not like they are all incredibly brilliant evil geniuses like in a Spiderman movie.
-
The most probable place for a massacre is decided by the perpetrator, who......
.....most often picks a gun free zone in a very gun restrictive state and city.
-
If you cherry pick every incident, you will find a justification for your wacko theories.
Have fun with that.
You can speculate now on why the nut in Aurora chose a BATMAN movie, instead of perhaps something by Woody Allen.
-
And if you gather the facts of every incident, you'll find a can't be ignored theme......that most every mass shooting occured in a gun free/gun limited zone, in a very gun restrictive state and city.
-
Was columbine one of those? I dont recall that issue brought up then
-
All schools are "gun free zones"
-
And you gather the facts.....
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/68672_528421600516362_440412336_n_zpse0b31651.jpg)
-
Finally saw one of thse gun free signs in my city. It's not in a very safe area of the city. But my town has made alot of good intention laws that tends to backfire.
And to be honest Kimba, most legislation is "well intentioned", but not well thought out, because too much emotion is built into passing the legislation vs determining if the legislation is even appropriate or targets the acts that generated the emotional charge
For instance, we keep hearing about the supposed "gun show loophole", that needs closed. Did you know Connecticut closed that loophole. Many states have. Did you also know that the % of crimes committed by guns that were purchased at a gun show is somewhere around 2%?
Did you know, as a civilian, it's illegal to purchase an automatic assault rifle, without a special license thru the ATF, yet you keep hearing about renewing the "assault weapons ban", as if anyone could go to the local Wall Mart and purchase a fully automatic military assault rifle.
All these cries for more gun laws would have done nothing to stop this pathologic kid. Not even banning guns would have stopped it, if as Bsb was referencing, he could have apparently aquired them on the blackmarket, if he had "snapped" that bad. So, we, as in a society, need to focus on how to identify these mentally fragile/broken folks. If they can be identified and diagnosed, THEN we can attempt to limit any access to firearms.....to them specifically. But passing asinine legislation, like higher taxes on ammo does squat to keep bad guys from getting ammo, just makes it harder for the rest of us to better defend ourselves
-
most legislation is "well intentioned", but not well thought out,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evEg1VNfX3o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evEg1VNfX3o)
-
BRILLIANT!!
-
Yeah, sure. This clown needs his stupid assault rifle for self-defense and protection against tyranny about as much as he needs to with it in his youtubery,
What a jackass!
-
lol
-
Yeah, sure. This clown needs his stupid assault rifle for self-defense and protection against tyranny about as much as he needs to with it in his youtubery,
What a jackass!
If he was attacked I can imagine his attacker getting shot.
If an equally humorous gun controll proponant celebrety were attacked what would happen?
-
It is just stupid to give a speech with a rifle in one's hand. The fool is a posturing jackass.
-
The rifle was there to reinforce that it's merely a tool....one that LOOKS like a military assault rifle, but isn't. Only a foolish jackass wouldn't get that
-
It is just stupid to give a speech with a rifle in one's hand. The fool is a posturing jackass.
Why do you say this?
If the subject of discussion was food , and he was holding a sandwitch would that seem innapropriate?
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/148907_540653449278903_989303858_n_zpse492f0ee.jpg)
-
It is just stupid to give a speech with a rifle in one's hand. The fool is a posturing jackass.
Why do you say this?
If the subject of discussion was food , and he was holding a sandwitch would that seem innapropriate?
you know...in that subway commercial...I coulda swore he was holding a subway sandwich. And that ginzu knife informercial, wasn't that a knife he was holding?
-
Because if it was a food conversation, it would be logical that he was about to eat the sandwich. The thought that after giving his macho gun schpiel, this clown is going to shoot something is just creepy.
-
The art if (ir)rationalization. ::)
Using the item that one is talking about is ok, if a you say so, but isn't, when you say so. Perhaps you don't grasp language as well as a language professor should. Here's a hint, listen to what's being said. If its about the sandwich, its about the sandwich. If about the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, its not illogical to have one with, esepcially when what he was saying had absolutely zero with wanting to go "shoot something".
But if you'd like, I'm sure I could find you a nice informational video on how to shoot something safely. Point being, having a rifle with you, when discussing the 2nd amendment and the stats involved when using firearms, is no different than having a sandwich, while discussing Subway. At least for those not ignorant in firearms and their use
-
Because if it was a food conversation, it would be logical that he was about to eat the sandwich. The thought that after giving his macho gun schpiel, this clown is going to shoot something is just creepy.
I speculate .
You may have too much emotion arosed by the sight of a gun to think of it blandly.
I don't find "shooting something" to be creepy.
I have had a lot of fun "plinking" and target practice , and when I have shot something to end its life It was either vermin that I was cleaner without or food that I was looking forward to eating.
Do you feel creepy when you are in your kitchen?
-
I agree Plane. I think emotion is the key foundational component to the entire anti-gun tirades, so many on the left find themselves in. They hate the looks, they hate anyone outside of the military, law enforcement, or protectors of important leftists, holding one, or even just having one. Hoplophobia I believe is the appropriate dx for most of these folks, and why we need to ban anything that looks like its a military assault rifle, even if it isn't
-
Maybe
But I stuck a disclamer on the frount , because I am speculating , and also because I have no psycological credential.
-
I once taught in a town so small and boring that for recreation the band teacher and I used to go to the town dump and shoot rats.
It wasn't that much fun, really, but again, this clown pretending to be macho man comes off as creepy.
-
Maybe
But I stuck a disclamer on the frount , because I am speculating , and also because I have no psycological credential.
It's a rational conclusion, based on the irrational efforts to demonize mere gun owners
-
the irrational efforts to demonize mere gun owners
yeah ya notice the Left & all the "old media" blame everyone except Lanza
well Lanza was "ill" ya know.....it wasn't his fault gosh he was "sick"..
yeah it's law abiding gun owners fault!
yeah it's the NRA's fault!
-
...it's just all those guns, just laying all over the place, for just anyone to pick up. Damn 2nd amendment
-
What makes him seem so macho to you?
I thought it was just Chuck Woolery, kind of a regular guy for a celebrety.
-
Hmmmm.....interesting non-answer ;)
-
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/163297_478121982234046_102470032_n.jpg)
-
Touche'
-
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/s480x480/188684_453286511397762_494748179_n.jpg)
-
Also have free education.
Insurance companies send thier patience to cuba for healthcare. Medicine is advance here but availability is another matter
-
They come here because health care and fear of guns are not the only things that attract people. Most Cubans in Cuba have the belief that they can come here, the US govt. will provide them with a place to live, a job and training and in a short time they will be rich.
When they get here, they discover that the job is not in nice, warm Florida, but in some tiny hick town in Tennessee, dismembering chickens, and that 80% of what they earn will go to buy absolute necessities, like food, clothing and rent. No one in Cuba pays more than a pittance in rent, fancy clothes are not a major issue, and the basic food is cheap.
The job is boring, tedious and dangerous and not at all like the make work jobs back in Cuba. Learning English is very difficult for some people, and the Cubans have little in common with the places they are sent for those jobs. If they are Black, the Florida Cuban community is extremely racist, and would far rather hire illegal Hondurans and other Latins to Black Cubans, who do not take crap from any racist. No country in Latin America had more racists than Cuba, and nearly all of them came to the US. The EEOC will not prosecute or chastise White Cubans who refuse to hire Black Cubans.
Paul Harvey is an old simplistic rightwing fart, He knows nothing of Cuba or Cubans.
And no, there is no touché. Not even a bit.
-
What is Castro doing that prevents the flocks of illeagal immagrants from alighting in Cuba?
Whatever it is it must be much more effective than what we do.
-
Paul Harvey is an old simplistic rightwing fart, He knows nothing of Cuba or Cubans
Paul Harvey is none of the above!
He's been dead for years.
Were you not aware of that?
-
I thought he was dead. But he was a simplistic old rightwing fart when he was alive, and this was precisely the sort of dumbass thing that simplistic old rightwing farts still say.
Many Cubans who have come here recently have become disenchanted with the USA and returned to Cuba. It is not in the interests of the Cuban or the American government to publicize this, but it certainly happens quiet often.
People who come here are people who do not fit in well there. There are people who do not fit in well anywhere, of course, and others who decide that they prefer Cuba to the US, especially if they have no relatives here.