Home Forums Hunting Firearms Legislation Discussing and Implementing Ideas for Protecting Our Schools

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 150 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • AvatarTeamAsgrow
    Participant
    Post count: 9151

    If you are planning to compare firearms training to mandatory trainings that teachers must complete at least compare the required trainings.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    With this said, how would mandatory self defense and/or mandatory firearm training be considered any different than mandatory CPR training, (already in place)? Teachers / faculty wouldn’t be required to carry a firearm, use a firearm if / when they found themselves within a violent incident, or even do anything above and beyond running an hiding if / when a violent incident occurred. It would simply be mandatory training, similar to any/all other mandatory training already in place. C’mon man, sounds pretty logical to me, and I’m far from a progressive, thank you.

    For starters, one is designed to save a live and the other to potentially take a life. In all honesty, I can’t believe this is even being discussed as logical.

    llewellinsetter, if you persist in dissing on me for not being ‘logical’, I can continue taking you to task with more ‘logical’ debate. I’d prefer not to do it on this topic beyond this response though, so please feel free to PM me and we can go from there.

    CPR and firearms are both ‘designed’ to save lives. (Firearms can also be used for hunting and recreation however, where CPR cannot.)

    It is possible to kill someone by performing CPR, (e.g. chest compressions are extremely dangerous, forcing lodged obstructions further in, etc.).

    When used properly in self defense, a firearm is used to save lives. If you kill the the criminal in the process, you are stopping them from committing murder. Murder is much different than killing in self defense.

    You’re right…

    1: It’s logical to force teachers to take a mandated firearms course and also within the Constitution to do so.
    2: It’s logical to place armed soldiers at entrances to schools, BTW, our high school has about fifteen different entrances and exists, and expect it to be budget and Constitutionally friendly.
    3: It’s logical to get insurers to side with arming teachers as a cost savings.
    4: It’s logical to compare CPR with firearms training.
    5: It’s logical to compare a school shooting to a National Security issue.

    I understand your passion on the issue and maybe if everyone in America had the same mindset as you it might be feasible but that’s not reality. Take a step back, slow down and analyze each of these solutions and see how they fit into a society governed by laws and individual rights. There’s not a simple fix, and quite frankly most of these suggestions would create more problems for the group than would be solutions. Sorry you don’t like the argument but what’s the sense of posting the question if all you want is agreeable answers?

    I’ve numbered your items above, so I can address them individually below.

    1: YES. When our public schools are soft targets that are being attacked by murderous terrorists, ABSOLUTELY. Yes, it is as Constitutional as mandatory CPR training, or any other ‘safety’ training.
    2: YES. When our public schools are soft targets that are being attacked by murderous terrorists, ABSOLUTELY. Turn a majority of those 15 entrance into Emergency Exit’s ONLY, similar to many LARGE office buildings and stores today. Yes, compared to the budgets required for other types of actions. Yes, I believe this is all Constitutional as well.
    3: It depends. If I were a parent that lost a child in a school massacre, I would file a civil suit against said school for not taking proper measures to protect my child. Now, I win the civil law suit against said school for multi-millions of dollars. (And I am only one of several parents who won similar civil law suits against said school…) Who would be responsible for paying me? If said school’s insurance provider would be on the hook for paying me, then YES, it is logical for insurers to side with arming teachers as cost savings. If said school’s insurance provider would not be responsible for paying me, then NO, it is not logical for insurers to side with arming teachers at cost savings.
    4: YES. Both are designed and intended to save the lives of our children.
    5: YES. Terrorist threats to the mortal safety of our school children should most definitely be considered an issue of National Security.

    I welcome feedback llewellinsetter, and even intelligent debate, (iron sharpens iron), but your previous statements, (in this topic and previous topics that I’ve participated in), tend to be slanderous in nature. I appreciate the feedback, but I don’t appreciate you ridiculing me or my statements in an attempt to make your self seem more intelligent, if only in your own mind.

    The majority of what I’m hearing in the MSM, is ban the evil AR ‘Devil’ rifles. I’m trying to bring a few ideas to the table that would most certainly deter school shootings. Throughout this conversation you have torn me and my ideas down without providing your own. I ask you… Which one of us sounds like a progressive in this discussion llewellinsetter?

    Loomis13Loomis13
    Participant
    Post count: 290

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    With this said, how would mandatory self defense and/or mandatory firearm training be considered any different than mandatory CPR training, (already in place)? Teachers / faculty wouldn’t be required to carry a firearm, use a firearm if / when they found themselves within a violent incident, or even do anything above and beyond running an hiding if / when a violent incident occurred. It would simply be mandatory training, similar to any/all other mandatory training already in place. C’mon man, sounds pretty logical to me, and I’m far from a progressive, thank you.

    For starters, one is designed to save a live and the other to potentially take a life. In all honesty, I can’t believe this is even being discussed as logical.

    llewellinsetter, if you persist in dissing on me for not being ‘logical’, I can continue taking you to task with more ‘logical’ debate. I’d prefer not to do it on this topic beyond this response though, so please feel free to PM me and we can go from there.

    CPR and firearms are both ‘designed’ to save lives. (Firearms can also be used for hunting and recreation however, where CPR cannot.)

    It is possible to kill someone by performing CPR, (e.g. chest compressions are extremely dangerous, forcing lodged obstructions further in, etc.).

    When used properly in self defense, a firearm is used to save lives. If you kill the the criminal in the process, you are stopping them from committing murder. Murder is much different than killing in self defense.

    You’re right…

    It’s logical to force teachers to take a mandated firearms course and also within the Constitution to do so.
    It’s logical to place armed soldiers at entrances to schools, BTW, our high school has about fifteen different entrances and exists, and expect it to be budget and Constitutionally friendly.
    It’s logical to get insurers to side with arming teachers as a cost savings.
    It’s logical to compare CPR with firearms training.
    It’s logical to compare a school shooting to a National Security issue.

    I understand your passion on the issue and maybe if everyone in America had the same mindset as you it might be feasible but that’s not reality. Take a step back, slow down and analyze each of these solutions and see how they fit into a society governed by laws and individual rights. There’s not a simple fix, and quite frankly most of these suggestions would create more problems for the group than would be solutions. Sorry you don’t like the argument but what’s the sense of posting the question if all you want is agreeable answers?

    I understand where you are coming from but you seem to be taking stuff too far. He is saying firearm training and it stops at training. Every teacher would be required to take the training but not every teacher would be required to do anything else with it (like carrying a firearm during class hours).The people that do end up wanting to carry would be carrying for the reason they learn CPR…to save a childs life, not because they want to kill another person. So, I think it is logical.

    Also, how I can see how someone thinks it is a national security issue. Just because you think it isnt a national security doesnt make it illogical (is that even a word lol).

    There was also other options aside from a National Guard member or security personel at every door. Like locking the doors down from the outside and have security at the few main entrances. You could also go as far as giving the school the option to do this. If they wanted to take it out of their budget to so this stuff they could, if they don’t fine. They just run the risk of a shooting happening quicker than had they opted for security.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: iowavf

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: iowavf

    Some good points made. I’m not sure where we’d get the 5 National Guardsmen for our buildings? Our door already have key fobs and are locked, but several doors are unlocked in the morning for 45 minutes for students to enter the building and main entrances unlocked for 30 minutes when schools out. You do have to be buzzed in after the doors are locked and the main entrances have a camera which the person can view before letting them in. Alarms on other exit doors might become a game and who would the alarms notify if tripped? Although our staff went through ALICE training and we even did a mock incident at our High School, some in the other buildings were pretty reluctant when it came to police even having the fake guns they use for training around them. You could try and make it mandatory, but the teacher’s union could be an obstacle. I’m not against teachers or staff carrying concealed if they pass the proper training and have maybe a 4 hour refresher a couple times a year, but I would try and keep those anonymous as to whom might be carrying.

    I’m not sure where you got the number of 5 National Guardsmen/women iowavf. If the school is small enough, one or two should be adequate. Larger schools would probably require more, but I don’t know the size of your specific school. This would of course be hammered out in the planning phase, after the idea was at least being taken into consideration.

    Your school already has some security devices and procedures in place. That’s great! I would imagine it would take less than others to implement these additional items, if needed.

    I can almost guarantee the teacher’s union would be an obstacle on making self defense and firearm training mandatory. I stress the importance of selling this to them as required training similar to CPR training. It’s learning proper skill sets to best be equipped to respond to a situation if one were to occur. School shootings / murders are a very real threat, so I don’t see how the teacher’s union could logically be opposed to this. It’s ONLY training, and they are responsible for the safety of our children.

    Pretty easy we have five main buildings with students in them, each building has it’s own main entrance and are several blocks from each other. We’re like a lot of other schools and aren’t able to have K – 12 in one building. I think it depends on what skill level and depth of mandatory firearm training you’re talking about? I’m just sure what the mandatory firearm training would consist of unless they had to handle a gun which there lies the issue for many. You’re not going to make them carry a gun or loose their job if they don’t, nor would I want any of them to have one! I think you’re comparing CRP training as the same as mandatory firearm training is like comparing apples to oranges, just not the same. We have fire training and drills, yet I haven’t seen any teachers or staff be made to come out to our fire department for fire training? Why is that?

    Ah, 5 buildings would equal at least 5 Guardsmen/women. Now I understand. Yes.
    The last time I took CPR training, I learned how to operate a defibrillator. Training someone how to handle a firearm should be comparable with that, within this discussion. Even thought they are two completely different things, they are both ‘tools’ used to save lives in case of an emergency.
    I didn’t mention the level of firearm training or self defense training before, because again, those would be details that could be hammered out after the idea were at least being considered. I’m thinking along the lines of Hunters Safety Course level, so nothing too extreme. Heck, I took my carry permit course and testing all Online, and frankly, it was a joke. If that’s as much as could be agreed upon, then so be it. It’s better than the nothing that most teachers/faculty have now.
    I addressed above why I feel firearm training and CPR training are comparable as apples to apples.
    As for fire training, this should also be mandatory.

    It’s amazing anyone feels comfortable allowing their children to attend public school! Watch the school bus pick them up in the morning and expect them to be safe all day because there are SO MANY safety measures in place… Err, nope. I guess there aren’t…

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    If you are planning to compare firearms training to mandatory trainings that teachers must complete at least compare the required trainings.

    I don’t quite understand what you’re saying, so I can’t accurately respond.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: Loomis13

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    You’re right…

    It’s logical to force teachers to take a mandated firearms course and also within the Constitution to do so.
    It’s logical to place armed soldiers at entrances to schools, BTW, our high school has about fifteen different entrances and exists, and expect it to be budget and Constitutionally friendly.
    It’s logical to get insurers to side with arming teachers as a cost savings.
    It’s logical to compare CPR with firearms training.
    It’s logical to compare a school shooting to a National Security issue.

    I understand your passion on the issue and maybe if everyone in America had the same mindset as you it might be feasible but that’s not reality. Take a step back, slow down and analyze each of these solutions and see how they fit into a society governed by laws and individual rights. There’s not a simple fix, and quite frankly most of these suggestions would create more problems for the group than would be solutions. Sorry you don’t like the argument but what’s the sense of posting the question if all you want is agreeable answers?

    I understand where you are coming from but you seem to be taking stuff too far. He is saying firearm training and it stops at training. Every teacher would be required to take the training but not every teacher would be required to do anything else with it (like carrying a firearm during class hours).The people that do end up wanting to carry would be carrying for the reason they learn CPR…to save a childs life, not because they want to kill another person. So, I think it is logical.

    Also, how I can see how someone thinks it is a national security issue. Just because you think it isnt a national security doesnt make it illogical (is that even a word lol).

    There was also other options aside from a National Guard member or security personel at every door. Like locking the doors down from the outside and have security at the few main entrances. You could also go as far as giving the school the option to do this. If they wanted to take it out of their budget to so this stuff they could, if they don’t fine. They just run the risk of a shooting happening quicker than had they opted for security.

    YES!!! I don’t know how so many people missed this in my initial topic post, or the multiple times that I have stated it throughout this discussion. Mandatory training ONLY. Thank you!

    I agree, there are absolutely other options aside from NG personnel at every door. Thanks for your feedback Loomis13.

    AvatarTeamAsgrow
    Participant
    Post count: 9151

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    If you are planning to compare firearms training to mandatory trainings that teachers must complete at least compare the required trainings.

    I don’t quite understand what you’re saying, so I can’t accurately respond.

    You keep blurting “cpr” training like it is required in order to teach. Actually knowing what trainings are required would lend your argument more credence. I just keep hearing ” more guns in schools, fall in line” from your comments.

    You blow over my suggestion of updating building codes with funds that are already in place. Probably because it doesn’t fit into your agenda.

    You missed the point of why an insurance company wouldnt want to arm people trained to teach not handle fire arms. Who will be on the hook if an accident happens with an armed teacher.

    You believe money for budgets can be bumped by putting pressure on local entities, when in reality we have a leader in the department of ed that would love to defund public schoools with a voucher system.

    We can come up with measures that are better than mandatory firearm training and arming teachers.

    llewellinsetterllewellinsetter
    Blocked
    Post count: 2514

    Quote by: Loomis13

    I understand where you are coming from but you seem to be taking stuff too far. He is saying firearm training and it stops at training. Every teacher would be required to take the training but not every teacher would be required to do anything else with it (like carrying a firearm during class hours).The people that do end up wanting to carry would be carrying for the reason they learn CPR…to save a childs life, not because they want to kill another person. So, I think it is logical.

    Also, how I can see how someone thinks it is a national security issue. Just because you think it isnt a national security doesnt make it illogical (is that even a word lol).

    There was also other options aside from a National Guard member or security personel at every door. Like locking the doors down from the outside and have security at the few main entrances. You could also go as far as giving the school the option to do this. If they wanted to take it out of their budget to so this stuff they could, if they don’t fine. They just run the risk of a shooting happening quicker than had they opted for security.

    Taking it too far? Are you kidding me? There is now way on earth you can implement mandatory firearms training for anyone, especially teachers. Hell we have soldiers that can get away with never handling a firearm. Go to a school board meeting and discuss this, I dare you.

    Also, Iowa has over 1700 schools serving nearly 500,000 kids. In Des Moines alone, East High, Valley, Lincoln, Waukee, etc. have at or near 2000 kids. Let’s just use your (5) guards per school number for the sake of needing a number. Are you going to permanently deploy over 8000 guard members or hire private security at around $60K a year plus benefits to cover this? That’s nearly $500 Million a year just in salaries. It’s insane.

    Also, schools don’t get options. Sometimes Districts do but not individual schools. This is so much bigger that you aren’t even considering the red tape that would be thousands of miles long, let alone the parents and the teachers, local law enforcement, etc. It would be worse than the TSA for crying out loud.

    As for not a National Security issue, I think this is pretty self explanatory.

    Again, I get the desire for a solution, I really do, but these are pushing the line of absurd and I know the left would definitely think it’s absurd. And if you think they are anti 2A now just think how far this kind of thinking will push them.

    Solutions HAVE TO BE social and community based. Meaning, everyone has to be on the same team. Alienating one side or another never works and that’s all this will do. So while the left pushes the anti gun agenda, those on the side of the Constitution have to put forth some realistic ideas that are thoughtful and meaningful. Security measures, like retrofitting doors, key cards, maybe even a fast pass to get into a parking structure might work but even these will be such a headache for a large school to accommodate I don’t know what the solution is.

    Sarcasm entails a few things: one of them is intellect, another one is a sense of humor, and a third - not taking things too personally.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    If you are planning to compare firearms training to mandatory trainings that teachers must complete at least compare the required trainings.

    I don’t quite understand what you’re saying, so I can’t accurately respond.

    You keep blurting “cpr” training like it is required in order to teach. Actually knowing what trainings are required would lend your argument more credence. I just keep hearing ” more guns in schools, fall in line” from your comments.

    You blow over my suggestion of updating building codes with funds that are already in place. Probably because it doesn’t fit into your agenda.

    You missed the point of why an insurance company wouldnt want to arm people trained to teach not handle fire arms. Who will be on the hook if an accident happens with an armed teacher.

    You believe money for budgets can be bumped by putting pressure on local entities, when in reality we have a leader in the department of ed that would love to defund public schoools with a voucher system.

    We can come up with measures that are better than mandatory firearm training and arming teachers.

    I’m not going to go into the specific details about the CPR training required within specific states, but I did provide a hyperlink to a website a couple of times already. Firearm training requirements wouldn’t be anything extensive. I’m thinking along the lines of a Hunters Safety Course. When terrorists are using guns to attack our children as they attend school, I see properly training and arming school staff as a MUCH better option for protecting our students than running and hiding, barricading doors that can be shot through, or throwing things, etc.

    I didn’t blow over your suggestion of updating building codes with funds already in place. I actually agree with this, but didn’t touch on it. In case you didn’t notice, I’ve been trying to respond to everyone. If I missed responding to this particular item, and you wanted me to, I’m sorry.

    No, I totally got it. Who’s on the hook for paying a civil suit if a parent sues the school for not protecting their child?

    OK

    Let’s hear them. Please.

    AvatarKent T
    Participant
    Post count: 274

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    This is not a discussion about support for or opposition to our 2nd Amendment rights, firearm legislation, mental illness, or the depravity of our current culture, etc.

    I am interested in discussing the following ideas with people who have the power to get them implemented within our public schools. Who do I need to get in front of, and how do I go about doing it? Is this something that should be approached at the school district level, county level, state level, or national level? Thanks in advance for your feedback.

    Below are a few ideas that I believe will deter school shootings from taking place. Please feel free to add your own ideas, but I’d like to mainly focus on these, or variations of these, as I believe they are budget friendly and could be implemented relatively quickly and easily.

    1. Place one or multiple armed National Guard men/women at main entry points of all public schools. Screen all people entering, similar to how courthouse entries are screened today. If this means use of metal detectors, banning certain items, capping the size of backpacks, etc., so be it.

    2. Lock all other entry points and establish security devices on them to stop unauthorized entry. Similar to many office buildings today.

    3. Make annual self defense and firearm training courses mandatory for all faculty, and support qualified faculty to carry a firearm. Faculty would not be required to be armed, but carrying a firearm would be promoted.

    Thanks again, BID

    Avatarmhock
    Participant
    Post count: 3353

    As the title suggests, let’s all appreciate the DISCUSSION.

    BID, I absolutely appreciate where you are coming from and applaud you putting forth a few OPTIONS of measurs that could, in theory, be implemented to make our schools safer for our children and teachers and staff.

    In my opinion, retrofitting our schools physically would be the cheapest, quickest, and most widely accepted way to START.

    I caught a quick news story yesterday of a HS in Indiana, I believe, that retrofitted their school with stronger doors, specialized locks that are controlled by someone in a security room. Cameras everywhere, and the ability for the local police department and/or dispatch to communicate with and see all the camera feeds. The news reporter put himself in the school as the intruder. He was located on the cameras. He was locked into an area through the use of the cameras and remotely locked doors. The cherry on the cake was once they had the “threat” quarantined, they also had a smoke system in place along side the sprinkler system. They have the ability to flood the confined area with this smoke screen to dissorient the threat and make a plan to apprehend. He couldnt see 2 fert in front of him. It was very interesting. I believe that particlular school spent something like $400,000 on these upgrades. I think they also had bullet proof glass installed.

    Maybe these upgrades aren’t for all schools. Maybe one or two of these options would help. Maybe federal funding could be used for portions of it. Use it for security or you don’t get the use of the funds type of policy?

    Keep these DISCUSSIONS going guys.

    Loomis13Loomis13
    Participant
    Post count: 290

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: Loomis13

    I understand where you are coming from but you seem to be taking stuff too far. He is saying firearm training and it stops at training. Every teacher would be required to take the training but not every teacher would be required to do anything else with it (like carrying a firearm during class hours).The people that do end up wanting to carry would be carrying for the reason they learn CPR…to save a childs life, not because they want to kill another person. So, I think it is logical.

    Also, how I can see how someone thinks it is a national security issue. Just because you think it isnt a national security doesnt make it illogical (is that even a word lol).

    There was also other options aside from a National Guard member or security personel at every door. Like locking the doors down from the outside and have security at the few main entrances. You could also go as far as giving the school the option to do this. If they wanted to take it out of their budget to so this stuff they could, if they don’t fine. They just run the risk of a shooting happening quicker than had they opted for security.

    Taking it too far? Are you kidding me? There is now way on earth you can implement mandatory firearms training for anyone, especially teachers. Hell we have soldiers that can get away with never handling a firearm. Go to a school board meeting and discuss this, I dare you.

    Also, Iowa has over 1700 schools serving nearly 500,000 kids. In Des Moines alone, East High, Valley, Lincoln, Waukee, etc. have at or near 2000 kids. Let’s just use your (5) guards per school number for the sake of needing a number. Are you going to permanently deploy over 8000 guard members or hire private security at around $60K a year plus benefits to cover this? That’s nearly $500 Million a year just in salaries. It’s insane.

    Also, schools don’t get options. Sometimes Districts do but not individual schools. This is so much bigger that you aren’t even considering the red tape that would be thousands of miles long, let alone the parents and the teachers, local law enforcement, etc. It would be worse than the TSA for crying out loud.

    As for not a National Security issue, I think this is pretty self explanatory.

    Again, I get the desire for a solution, I really do, but these are pushing the line of absurd and I know the left would definitely think it’s absurd. And if you think they are anti 2A now just think how far this kind of thinking will push them.

    Solutions HAVE TO BE social and community based. Meaning, everyone has to be on the same team. Alienating one side or another never works and that’s all this will do. So while the left pushes the anti gun agenda, those on the side of the Constitution have to put forth some realistic ideas that are thoughtful and meaningful. Security measures, like retrofitting doors, key cards, maybe even a fast pass to get into a parking structure might work but even these will be such a headache for a large school to accommodate I don’t know what the solution is.

    I don’t disagree with you. Im just saying you are taking what he is suggesting and adding on to it to make it more extreme. 5 guards is ridiculous and impractical but no one said 5 per school besides you. I know at the HS that I attended has changed the way do things. I tried to go back and meet with the assistant AD and tried to walk right in like normal..that didn’t work. I had to buzz in and talk to the secretary.

    riverriver
    Participant
    Post count: 1155

    Excellent conversation. Talk to your local officials and on up the ladder. Each community has people whose thoughts are out there, though maybe voiceless, try to get them engaged. This is something we have to do. We simply cannot sit on our hands. Someone said: Where there is a will there is a way. Lets find a way.

    llewellinsetterllewellinsetter
    Blocked
    Post count: 2514

    Quote by: Loomis13

    I don’t disagree with you. Im just saying you are taking what he is suggesting and adding on to it to make it more extreme. 5 guards is ridiculous and impractical but no one said 5 per school besides you. I know at the HS that I attended has changed the way do things. I tried to go back and meet with the assistant AD and tried to walk right in like normal..that didn’t work. I had to buzz in and talk to the secretary.

    Actually if you look at the other comments you would see that’s where I got the (5) number…

    Let’s look at perspective here…

    West Des Moines Valley High School, 1900 students, 200 on site staff members, 4 main entrances, half a dozen alternate entrances, two stories, and a 1,400-seat performing arts center.
    How many guards?
    5 is ridiculous and impractical? It takes five minutes to get from one end of the school to the other. The Florida shooting lasted 7 minutes or less, Sandy Hook, 6 minutes, in all reality it would be over before the “suspect” could even be engaged let alone neutralized. So depending on the scope of the facility five could be too many or even to little.

    Just like the pro 2A argument, any crime, if someone wants to do it they will because it’s not the gun, it’s the behavior and unless you screen every kid, parent, janitor, substitute teacher, vending machine guy etc, through a system like the TSA, there will always be a way. No doubt most of you hate the TSA, yet somehow you want the same thing for our schools. We have to change the behavior behind the violence or it will ALWAYS exist and perpetually get worse. And BTW, these shooters are not choosing schools because they are soft targets, they are choosing them because they are kids. This is the place that treats them bad, makes them feel alone, ugly, left out etc. It’s no different than kids driven to suicide. It’s just another “option” for confused and scared kids that are somehow twisted in their path of life with no one to set them straight. Most, if not all of these shootings should have been prevented or at the very least we should have seen it coming. In the latest case they did see it coming, and they still did nothing. Nothing. Unfortunately beneath the tournaments, the trophys, and the games school has become an increasingly ugly place for a lot of kids these days. Pile on social media and it’s a shit storm for them. Add in no parents love or discipline at home and it’s a extremely volatile situation.

    That said, the idea of armed soldiers, bullet proof glass, etc does not sit well with me, nor what I think would be the majority of people with kids in school. Americans always want to put a fix on things but they never want to solve the problem so it doesn’t happen again. Sometimes you have to go through a terrible stretch of time to solve problems and in all honesty I’d rather do that than provide a little temporary fix that will ultimately morph into something beyond our wishes.

    We have to change the hearts and minds of people to get them to understand the values that made this country what it is, yet we sit by and have idle hands and idle tongues while they pollute our children with nonsense. In reality, we should be more concerned with the propaganda nonsense they are teaching our kids than someone shooting in a school. We’re so concerned with this shooting and what to do but how many of you have actually spent time with your kids teachers, their counselors, their principals? How many have been to a school board or PTO meeting? How many of you volunteer at you child’s school? We have to get back to our roots by getting involved with our neighbors, our teachers, our churches, our communities. etc. You want to fix things? Then fix the decay in society and the rest will take care of itself..

    Sarcasm entails a few things: one of them is intellect, another one is a sense of humor, and a third - not taking things too personally.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: Loomis13

    I don’t disagree with you. Im just saying you are taking what he is suggesting and adding on to it to make it more extreme. 5 guards is ridiculous and impractical but no one said 5 per school besides you. I know at the HS that I attended has changed the way do things. I tried to go back and meet with the assistant AD and tried to walk right in like normal..that didn’t work. I had to buzz in and talk to the secretary.

    Actually if you look at the other comments you would see that’s where I got the (5) number…

    Let’s look at perspective here…

    West Des Moines Valley High School, 1900 students, 200 on site staff members, 4 main entrances, half a dozen alternate entrances, two stories, and a 1,400-seat performing arts center.
    How many guards?
    5 is ridiculous and impractical? It takes five minutes to get from one end of the school to the other. The Florida shooting lasted 7 minutes or less, Sandy Hook, 6 minutes, in all reality it would be over before the “suspect” could even be engaged let alone neutralized. So depending on the scope of the facility five could be too many or even to little.

    Just like the pro 2A argument, any crime, if someone wants to do it they will because it’s not the gun, it’s the behavior and unless you screen every kid, parent, janitor, substitute teacher, vending machine guy etc, through a system like the TSA, there will always be a way. No doubt most of you hate the TSA, yet somehow you want the same thing for our schools. We have to change the behavior behind the violence or it will ALWAYS exist and perpetually get worse. And BTW, these shooters are not choosing schools because they are soft targets, they are choosing them because they are kids. This is the place that treats them bad, makes them feel alone, ugly, left out etc. It’s no different than kids driven to suicide. It’s just another “option” for confused and scared kids that are somehow twisted in their path of life with no one to set them straight. Most, if not all of these shootings should have been prevented or at the very least we should have seen it coming. In the latest case they did see it coming, and they still did nothing. Nothing. Unfortunately beneath the tournaments, the trophys, and the games school has become an increasingly ugly place for a lot of kids these days. Pile on social media and it’s a shit storm for them. Add in no parents love or discipline at home and it’s a extremely volatile situation.

    That said, the idea of armed soldiers, bullet proof glass, etc does not sit well with me, nor what I think would be the majority of people with kids in school. Americans always want to put a fix on things but they never want to solve the problem so it doesn’t happen again. Sometimes you have to go through a terrible stretch of time to solve problems and in all honesty I’d rather do that than provide a little temporary fix that will ultimately morph into something beyond our wishes.

    We have to change the hearts and minds of people to get them to understand the values that made this country what it is, yet we sit by and have idle hands and idle tongues while they pollute our children with nonsense. In reality, we should be more concerned with the propaganda nonsense they are teaching our kids than someone shooting in a school. We’re so concerned with this shooting and what to do but how many of you have actually spent time with your kids teachers, their counselors, their principals? How many have been to a school board or PTO meeting? How many of you volunteer at you child’s school? We have to get back to our roots by getting involved with our neighbors, our teachers, our churches, our communities. etc. You want to fix things? Then fix the decay in society and the rest will take care of itself..

    “This is not a discussion about support for or opposition to our 2nd Amendment rights, firearm legislation, mental illness, or the depravity of our current culture, etc.

    I support fixing our culture, but that’s an entirely different topic. This topic is discussing how to ‘protect’ our school children from the wac-a-do’s, not fixing the wac-a-do’s.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 150 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.